To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade when the cable of the Barrels Lightship was last lifted, and by whom it was examined, and if any repairs were done at that time; and, if so, what was the cost of the same. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the cable of this lightship was last lifted in August, 1904, when it was examined by the chief officer of their steamship "Tearaght" and the master of the lightship. As a result repairs were effected by cutting out all the worn cable to the extent of forty fathoms, and replacing it by the same amount of new cable at a cost of about £70.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the order issued in December, 1902, to the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary making it part of their duty, when they observe a person under the influence of drink entering licensed premises, to warn the licensee or his assistants is still in force; and, if so, whether it is acted upon in Dublin; and whether, in the interests of sobriety as well as the protection of the licensed trade, he will cause the attention of the members of both forces to be again specially drawn to the terms of the order. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Answer to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The order has been issued in printed form to both forces, and is fully known to the police. There does not appear to be any sufficient reason why special attention should be again directed to it.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuten-ant of Ireland whether he will state the number of licensed premises which were voluntarily closed on St. Patrick's Day in the cities of Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Gal-way, Waterford, and Belfast; and whether he is aware that there is throughout Ireland a general desire to confirm this voluntary closing by Act of Parliament. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) In Dublin 585: in Limerick 287; in Cork 18; in Gal way 139; in Waterford 162; and in Belfast none. I have no information upon the point raised in the latter inquiry.

To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the quantity of line-caught fish landed in the Island of Lewis by Lewis fishing boats for each year since 1870, inclusive. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) Fresh fish statistics for the Island were only collected after 1884. Previous to 1889 only the grand totals for the district, which embraced at that period North and South Uist and the Island of Barra, are entered in the fresh fish statistics book.

To ask the Postmaster-General can he state if the strength of the telegraph staff (male) at Belfast at the present time is under or above the strength of the staff at the time the present annual leave scheme was adopted; and can he say under what circumstances the numbers taking leave at the various periods of the year have been reduced this year from eight to seven notwithstanding that at the time when the scheme was adopted a definite agreement was entered into with the staff that the number should be fixed at eight. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The strength of the male telegraph staff at Belfast at the present time is practically the same as it was when the present leave scheme was introduced. Seven officers were then allowed on leave at the same time, and when the staff was increased in 1901 that number was raised to eight. The staff was recently reduced, and consequently the number allowed away on

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into his favourable consideration the suggestion that the practice of issuing small books containing twenty-four penny postage stamps, at the price of 2s. 0½d., should be extended, and books containing eighteen penny and twelve halfpenny stamps should be issued at the same price. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In view of the comparatively small sale of books of stamps I hardly think it is expedient to have two different books. A book containing both penny and halfpenny stamps would perhaps be more useful than the book of penny stamps now on sale, and I am considering the question of substituting books containing both penny and halfpenny stamps when the stock in hand of the present book is exhausted. This stock is, however, sufficient at the present rate of sale to last for some considerable time.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Cardiff many assistant postmen's duties extend for more than six hours daily; and whether he will take steps to have these times made into full time established duties, especially in view of the periods some of the assistant postmen have been waiting for appointment. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of increasing the number of full duty established postmen at Cardiff is being considered in connection with a general revision of the postmen's duties which is in hand.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will furnish a classified list showing the nature of the crimes for which the bulk of the 4,833 aliens in His Majesty's prisons are at present undergoing sentences.

Cause of accident.	Total number of accidents to persons or property.	Number of accidents to property.	Number of accidents to persons.	Total number of persons injured in accidents shown in column IV.	Nature of accidents to persons.
					Number slight.	Number serious.	Number fatal.
(I.)	(II.)	(III.)	(IV.)	V.	(VI.)	(VII.)	(VIII.)
Horses	277	78	193	206	177	27	2
Horse-drawn vehicles	15,736	11,711	4,916	5,126	4,473	543	110
	16,013	11,789	5,109	5,332	4,650	570	112

(Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The figure quoted by the hon. Member is not the number of aliens at present undergoing sentence, but the total number received under sentence in all the prisons in Great Britain and Ireland during the year 1904. The number at present in prison is very much less, only seven or eight hundred. The Royal Commission on Alien Immigration gave in their Report (Vol. III., p. 81) a classification of the offences committed by aliens received under sentence during the years 1889 to 1903. I think that these figures should sufficiently meet the purpose which the hon. Member has in view. The total for 1904 is higher, but there is no reason to think that the proportion of the different classes of offences has altered materially. To compile a similar classification for the year 1904 would involve a laborious examination of the prison records, which I should be reluctant to impose on the hard-worked staff of the prisons.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many accidents to the person and to property respectively have occurred within the Metropolitan District of London from June, 1904, to March, 1905, due to horse traction; and further to state result of various accidents. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The subjoined table gives the information which the hon. Member desires:—

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state if a contract, binding the Trinity House and Irish Lighthouse Commissioners to purchase all their lenses from Messrs. Chance of Birmingham, still exists; whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Northern Lights have with advantage purchased by obtaining competitive tenders from other firms; and whether, with reference to the statement of the engineer of the Trinity House to the Mercantile Marine Committee that a certain French lighthouse seemed to be of a better class than that adopted by the Trinity House, he will obtain the cost of building the French lighthouses of La Heve, Griznez, and Ushant. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A contract has been entered into between the firm mentioned and each of the three general lighthouse authorities, under which the latter, for a period of three years from January 1st, 1904, undertake to purchase their optical apparatus from Messrs. Chance in accordance with a schedule of prices which has been arranged. It is, however, one of the conditions of this contract that the lighthouse authorities reserve the power of putting up to open competition any apparatus for which Messrs. Chance may have submitted a price which is considered too high, and I understand that both the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have in certain cases exercised that power. The Board of Trade will endeavour to obtain information from the French Government regarding the cost of construction of the three lighthouses named in the latter part of the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state the cost of the lighthouses at St. Catherine's, Dungeness, the Wolf, and the Fastnet complete. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have received the following information from the Trinity House:—

St. Catherine's:—	£
The original building showing an oil light was purchased in 1840 for	7,855
The cost of installing the electric light in 1888 amounted to	12,767
Total	£20,622

Dungeness:—	£
The cost of the two new lighthouses and fog signal recently completed is	21,138
To which should be added the value of old buildings worked in	3,000
Total	£24,138

Wolf:—
The cost of this lighthouse was	£63,426

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the account for the Fastnet is not yet closed, but that the approximate cost is estimated at £83,500.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that an application has been made by or on behalf of the Trustees of the Wick Harbour for a loan, or a free grant, for the purpose of extending or improving the harbour accommodation at Wick to meet the growing requirements of the fishing fleets on the north-east coast of Scotland, he will say whether it is intended to make a free grant or to sanction a loan for the proposed work, and the conditions upon which same is to be given; and will he explain why a similar application made on two previous occasions has been refused; and whether the circumstances of the applicants have altered since the previous refusals. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I understand that an application for a loan has been preferred by the Wick Harbour Trustees to the Public Works Loan Board, who have it now under their consideration. A previous application was not entertained, as, on the occasion of the remission of an outstanding balance on an old loan in 1902, a condition was attached that no applications for further loans of public money should be made. As new facts have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Wick, this condition has now been waived.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Germany and England interpret the most-favoured-nation clause in the same way; and, if not, what is the difference. (Answered by Earl Percy.) I am not aware of any case in which the German Government has asserted a different view of the meaning of the most-favoured-nation clause from that held by ourselves.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the outbreak of smallpox at Bradford; and whether he would call the attention of the guardians to the importance of the earliest discovery of cases of the disease, and with this view suggest to the guardians the issue of notices to the public urging them to seek medical advice at the earliest opportunity in all feverish ailments accompanied by a rash, however slight. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that there have been cases of smallpox at Bradford during the present year. The suggestions referred to in the Question appear to me rather to concern the town council than the guardians. I have no reason to doubt that the town council and their officers are taking all precautions which experience has shown to be necessary in dealing with the matter; but, I will draw the attention of the town council to the suggestion of the hon. Member. I may add that nineteen additional cases were notified during the week ended on the 8th instant; and I am in communication with the town council as to the circumstances which led to their occurrence.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether during the last few years the Bradford Guardians have reduced the number of applications for out-relief, and whether they have discouraged applications for medical out-relief by requiring parents (in the case of sick children) to attend before the board or a committee, or by making the relief on loan in the first instance, or by other means; and, if so, whether he would send a communication to the guardians recommending them to encourage applications for medical out-relief (by those unable to pay for medical advice) in the early stages of illness, and before infectious diseases have developed. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am aware that some few years since the Bradford Guardians adopted a policy of administration of out-relief, the effect of which has been to diminish the number of applications, but I have no information to show that the action of the guardians has been such as to render it necessary or desirable to send to them a communication of the kind referred to in the latter part of the Question.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how many new Indian Government appointments of Rs. 5,000 per annum and upwards have been created since 1892; and how many of these appointments are now held by Europeans and how many by Indians. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I observe that the same information was asked for by the hon. Mr. Gokhale at a meeting of the Council of the Governor-General of India on the 10th March, and that the Financial Member of the Council replied as follows:—"The preparation of the Return asked for by the hon. Member would require a reference to Account Offices, Civil, Public Works, and Military, all over India. It would involve a very large amount of labour, and occupy several months of time. In these circumstances the Governor-General in Council does not feel justified in ordering the Return to be prepared." I therefore hesitate to make so considerable a call on the Government of India.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the duties on Indian silk goods entering France are higher than the duties on similar goods from China or Japan; and whether any negotiations have taken place on the subject. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Silk goods of Chinese or Japanese origin, so far as they are not on the free list, are admitted into France at lower rates than are applicable to similar goods of Indian origin. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what changes have recently been made or are about to be made in the garrison of Hong-Kong. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A battalion of Native Indian Infantry has recently been withdrawn, The establishment of the one British battalion is being slightly reduced.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that Mr. J. Gibbs, of Cable Street, St. George's East, joined the 2nd Tower Hamlets Rifle Volunteers in 1881, and after upwards of twenty years service was transferred to the 1st City Imperial Yeomanry, in which force he still serves, can he see his way to grant Mr. Gibbs the long-service medal in recognition of this long period of service in the Auxiliary Forces. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forsler.) As regards the Imperial Yeomanry long-service medal Mr. Gibbs' service in this branch has not been sufficient to qualify him for the medal. As regards the Volunteer long-service medal there is no record at the War Office of any recommendation having been made by the proper authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the accommodation provided for the officers of the Native Infantry Regiment now in garrison at Singapore consists of huts partially made of palm leaves; and, if so, whether better accommodation can be provided for British officers and their families in a tropical climate with a rainfall of 200 inches per annum.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question for my right hon. friend. The temporary barracks mentioned are made of brick piers and attap roofs and sides (attap being the leaf of a large flag used locally for thatching). They were designed to last three years and have been in use more than half that time. The married officers' quarters have been reported to be unsatisfactory, and arrangements to provide permanent accommodation are now in progress.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whom at the present time is the office of Judge Advocate-General, to whose holder appertains the duty of revising the decisions of Courts-martial, whose number average annually 17,000, filled; whether it is still the duty of the Judge Advocate- General in all serious cases to present the proceedings of Courts-martial to the Sovereign in person and to advise on the sentence; and, if that duty has been abrogated or modified, when and under what circumstances did the abrogation or modification take place, and what were the reasons for the change.

Pending the vacancy in the office of the Judge Advocate-General the business is carried on by the Deputy Judge Advocate-General. It is not the duty of the Judge Advocate-General to present the proceedings of any Court-martial to the Sovereign in person, but it is his duty in such cases as require confirmation by the King to tender to the King in person his opinion as to the legality of the proceedings, in which the legality of the sentence is included. This duty has not been in any way abrogated or modified. The question whether any modification should be made in the position and functions of the Judge Advocate-General is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the position of those officers and men of the Militia who do not desire to be incorporated in the short-service Army, in the event of the battalion being so incorporated.

The position of any officers and men who may not desire to be so incorporated will be unaltered, so far as their appointments or engagements are concerned; but I am not able at present to enter into any details in this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the conditions of colour service, Reserve service, and pay he proposes for the foreign-service and home-service Armies; and whether recruiting sergeants will have instructions to offer the recruit a choice of home or foreign service.

The information required will be found in the Papers presented to the House last session—Cd. 1907 and Cd. 1910. Recruiting sergeants will, as usual, offer the recruit a choice of those services for which recruiting may for the time being be open.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by what method it is proposed to decide the question as to whether a Militia battalion shall or shall not be transformed into a home-service battalion of the Regular Army; whether a bare majority of officers or men or both will be considered adequate; and, if not, what proportion will be considered necessary.

The question brought forward by the hon. Member does not at present arise, and I think it would be premature to anticipate the instructions which the Army Council may think fit to give upon the subject.

Are we to understand that it is proposed to go forward with the transformation of the Militia this year?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many of the white men at present employed in or about the Transvaal mines are of British origin and nationality; and how many belong to other white nationalities.

On March 31st, 1904, as the hon. Member will see by reference to page 4 of Cd. 2104, the number of British born employed in the mining industry was 11,408, the number of other Europeans, l,766. I have asked for a similar Return for March 31st, 1905, but have not yet received it.

Does the total include Beit and Eckstein?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the circular of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, dated March 17th, in which it is stated that in future no natives will be recruited in Basutoland and Orange River Colony, except for underground work only and for a period of not less than twelve months; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

I have not seen the circular referred to.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries.

My mind is open to conviction. If the hon. Gentleman will give me a reason for making inquiries I will do so.

asked whether it was right that the terms of engagement between Kaffirs and the mineowners should be suddenly altered so that the natives should not be employed except for a whole year.

As to the duration of the engagement I will make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the cause of the riot on April 9th at the Jumpers Deep Mine in the Transvaal; how many Chinese coolies were concerned in it; how many were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences were inflicted.

I have telegraphed for information but have not yet received the reply.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Treaty of Agreement which the Mullah has signed was drawn up jointly by Italy and Great Britain; and what are the terms of the agreement.

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets on March 23rd†. We have not yet received any reply from Colonel Swayne.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that at Bradford a coroner and jury are under observation because they were compelled to view the body of a man who, in the opinion of the medical officer, had been suffering from malignant smallpox; whether, in view of the practice of viewing bodies in such cases becoming a possible danger to the community, he will consider the advisability of again introducing the Bill which in 1879 passed its Second Reading under the care of the then Home Secretary, the object of which was to make the viewing of bodies by coroners and juries no longer compulsory

My attention has not been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member. With regard to the general question of the obligation of coroners and coroners' juries to view bodies, I fear that I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on March 23rd‡.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of the majority of coroners is against the practice of viewing bodies?

I have no doubt it is in a great many cases, but I am not inclined as at present advised to introduce a Bill on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of

† See (4) Debates, ciliii., 952.

‡ See (4) Debates, cxliii., 931.

Agriculture whether he will insert in the Agricultural Rates Act (1896) Continuance Bill a clause providing that in those cases in which it can be proved that the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill accrue to the landlord and not to the tenant, the tenant shall have the right to recover the same from the landlord.

A clause of the kind suggested would, I think, clearly be outside the scope of the Bill, which only extends for a further period the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896,etc., Continuance Act, 1901.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that notices intimating the amount of parochial assessment due, which have hitherto been delivered for a halfpenny, are not now eligible to be included under that class of packet that can be sent for a halfpenny; and whether, in view of the addition to the outlays of the rating authorities and incidentally of the ratepayers that this will entail, he will consider the advisability of revoking this order as far as it applies to the above notices.

It is true that, before January 1st, 1904, notices issued by local authorities were transmissible for a postage of one halfpenny. When, however, the regulations of the halfpenny post were revised it was found necessary to restrict the privilege of sending notices (other than those which conformed to the conditions applicable to circulars) at the halfpenny rate to officers of a Court of Justice. I am sorry that I do not see my way to alter the decision then arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the result of the inquiry held by Captain Frederick, R.N., into the removal of shingle from the sea shore lying between Blackpool and Fleetwood has been reported to the Board; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take upon it.

Yes, Sir, Captain Frederick's report has been received and considered, and the applicants have been informed that the Board of Trade are prepared to make an Order under Section 14 of the Harbours Act, 1814, prohibiting the removal of shingle or ballast from the shores or banks of the sea between Blackpool and Fleetwood.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is in a position to state what is the decision of the Treasury upon the application made to the Lords Commissioners for assistance to the authorities of the harbour of Wick in completing the harbour works designed to render Wick a safe harbour of refuge.

I understand that the Trustees, on the representation of my hon. friend, have applied to the Public Works Loan Board for a further loan, and that the application is now under the consideration of the Board. It is an entirely independent body, but as I know the very great interest my hon. friend takes in the matter, the decision of the Board shall be communicated to him as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1903 is only just now issued; and if, having regard to the continued delay which takes place in connection with the publication of this Report as well as the Reports of Irish Boards and the consequent depreciation in their value for different purposes, he will take steps to ensure reasonable punctuality in future.

The delay in this particular case was unavoidable. There is no reason to apprehend that similar delay will occur in future. My right hon. friend has already promised to have those Reports expedited as much as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the order issued in December, 1902 to the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force and the Royal Irish Constabulary making it part of their duty, when they observe a person under the influence of drink entering licensed premises, to warn the licensee or his assistants is still in force; and, if so, whether it is acted upon in Dublin; and whether, in the interests of sobriety as well as the protection of the licensed trade, he will cause the attention of the members of both forces to be again specially drawn to the terms of the order.

The Answer to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The order has been issued in printed form to both forces, and is fully known to the police. There does not appear to be any sufficient reason why special attention should be again directed to it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to relieve the ratepayers in the county of Kerry from the payment of certain railway and other guarantees in accordance with the promise of the right hon. Member for Dover.

I beg to ask the hon. Member to postpone this Question until Monday, when my right hon. friend, who is now absent on official business, will be in his place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are in progress for the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of Mrs. Adair's estate situate at Mountmellick, Queen's County; and whether he can say, as this estate includes the holdings of several evicted tenants, that due regard shall be had to their claims in the disposal of the property.

The Answer to the first inquiry is in the negative. If the estate should come before the Commissioners the claims of the evicted tenants will be considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what progress has been made with the negotiations for improving the ferry communications between Reenard and Valentia under the Marine Works Act.

The Congested Districts Board have offered to contribute £1,000 towards the cost—estimated at £1,800—of erecting a pier at Reenard Point, but no contribution from other sources has been promised. The Great Southern and Western Railway Company, it is understood, are not prepared to cooperate with the Board. The Knight of Kerry stated last year that he was prepared to provide a ferry-boat if the pier were built.

Are the negotiations still going on?

I do not think they are absolutely finished.

Are no funds to be provided by the Board for carrying out marine works?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he intends carrying into effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission which sat in reference to the present Civil Service Superannuation Act; and, if so, when.

This Question is not one which my right hon. friend can answer. It is not for him to carry into effect the recommendations referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Return ordered as to the qualifications of Government servants in Ireland, whether he can state on what grounds his legal advisers base their opinion that the House of Commons has no power to require Government servants in Ireland to answer interrogatories ordered by this House; whether the Government will sanction any official refusing to supply the information called for by this House; and whether it will be made clear that officials pursuing that course will do so at their own risk.

The grounds are that there is nothing in the terms or conditions of the employment of Civil servants, or of the well - established practice of the Civil Service, entitling the Executive to institute ex post facto inquiries into such incidents of their past private life as the place of their education, or obliging Civil servants to answer such inquiries, if instituted. The reply to the second query is in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative.

Do the Government intend to sanction the action of any official who chooses to defy the order of this House?

An order of this House cannot compel any man, not a Member, to answer a question which by law he is not bound to.

Who gave this advice to the Chief Secretary? Was it the right hon. Gentleman himself?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the quarter sessions for the division of East Cork, held at Midleton on Thursday last, the calendar did not contain a single criminal case; and whether steps will be taken to accelerate the reduction of the Constabulary in East Cork.

The fact is as stated. Five stations in the East Riding of Cork have been discontinued during the past year, and no further reduction is contemplated at present.

As the police have so little to do could not their services be availed of to protect the Nationalists in the Orange centres of Ulster?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Goold Estate, near Athea, in the county of Limerick, are negotiating with their landlord to purchase their holdings; and whether, in view of the number of uneconomic holdings on it, the Estates Commissioners will at once take steps to negotiate with the landlord for the purchase of the untenanted land on the estate to enlarge these holdings before sale is completed and before the land may be otherwise disposed of.

No proceedings for the purchase of this estate have come before the Commissioners. They are not negotiating for its purchase, but will consider the question of the untenanted land if the estate should come before them.

Will the Commissioners advance money for the purchase of the untenanted lands?

Notice must be given of that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in the year 1903 required of the manager of the Kilmeedy national schools, in the county of Limerick, any condition for the giving of the grant-in-aid for the building of new schools there; and, if not, why in the year 1904 did the Commissioners require the boys' and girls' schools should be amalgamated in the event of the average daily attendance in the boys' school not warranting the appointment of an assistant as a condition for giving the grant-in-aid towards the building of the schools; and whether he will still insist on the manager agreeing to these conditions before giving the grant.

The manager's formal application for a building grant was received by the Commissioners on the 30th December, 1903. The application was not considered during the year 1903, and consequently no condition in connection with the question of awarding a building grant was imposed during that year. The condition referred to was communicated to the manager in 1904, and in taking this action, which it is not intended to depart from, the Commissioners were guided solely by a desire to promote the educational interests of the locality.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application for reinstatement has been lodged by Patrick O'Brien, Sisken, Cadamstown, King's County; and, if so, whether, as the estate of Captain French Kinnity, King's County, is offered for sale, a large portion of which is un-tenanted grass land, a farm will be provided for Patrick O'Brien if his old holding is not available.

Yes, Sir. The application will receive consideration if the Commissioners should acquire un-tenanted lands in the locality. Captain French's estate has not come before the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what qualifications Mr. Cyril Browne possesses for the position of auditor to the Local Government Board; and what was his employment previous to his appointment.

Mr. Browne was certified by the Civil Service Commissioners as qualified for this post. The information asked for in the latter inquiry will be found in the Return laid on the Table on March 27th.

Is it not the fact that Mr. Cyril Browne, who has given general dissatisfaction, was, previous to his appointment, nothing more than a police official in Dublin.

No, Sir, the information at my disposal is that he gives satisfaction except to the bodies surcharged. His qualifications are fully set forth in a Return I have given.

But has he any qualification for audit work? Is he a chartered accountant?

Is not the objection to the biassed nature of his report rather than to his surcharges?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board hold with their auditor, Mr. Cyril Browne, that printing is a public work within the meaning of the Act; and, if so, will he state the authority on which they rely.

Under Article 33 (2) of the Procedure of Councils Order, 1899, contracts for printing are to be dealt with in the same manner as contracts for public works. The Board therefore hold, with their auditor, that Section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1902, dealing with public works, applies to printing contracts.

Has any decision been arrived at on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman?

I am not aware if any decision has been given. I did not give any advice on the point.

Who did advise the Board that this is lawful?

The legal adviser.

Who is he?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the leading musical publishers have been compelled to give up publishing any new music as they can obtain no protection for their property from the law as it stands; and whether, under the circumstances, he is prepared to give facilities for introducing and passing legislation dealing with the question of musical piracy.

I have seen the statement, to which my hon. friend refers, made by the musical publishers, and I do think the case is one of hardship upon them and of injury to the public, who are, after all, themselves concerned in the prosperity or freedom of musical publications. But when my hon. friend asks me to take up a private Bill I see great difficulty in doing that. I should much prefer to bring forward a Government measure, but I cannot do that if that is supposed to carry with it anything in the nature of a pledge that time will be found for carrying that Government Bill. As everybody who has had to deal with the business of this House knows, there has never been a Government yet who did not desire to pass more Bills than they could find time for in the session, and that especially refers to what I may call Bills which do not deeply touch any great interest or Party controversy Those are Bills which very often it is most desirable to pass, but which it is most difficult to find time to pass, and therefore I can make no pledge on the-subject at all.

May I ask my right hon. friend whether this is not a very exceptional case, considering the large number of men who will be thrown out of work simply because Parliament does not provide a remedy for an admitted wrong, and whether, under the circumstances, he could not undertake to find time to pass a Bill.

I think it is an exceptional case. I think it is a hard case; but when my hon. friend asks me to find time I think the question ought to be, "Will I make time?" With the best will in the world I cannot pledge myself to do that; but anything I can do I will do.

Will my right hon. friend introduce a Bill in order that we may test the House as to whether it would be regarded as non-contentious or not.

I am afraid a Bill which might be non-contentious in private hands is very apt, through some mysterious law which I will not endeavour to attempt to explain, to become contentious as soon as the Government takes it up; but I will consider whether there is any advantage in introducing a Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when an opportunity will be afforded to this House of discussing the terms on which the Colonial Conference of 1906 will be convened.

I think this Question quite premature.

Is that an Answer to my Question?

I should have thought so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the proposals to reduce the establishment of the Volunteer force by 114,000 men and the actual strength by 45,000 men, he will give an early day for the discussion of the details of the scheme on Vote 5, Army Estimates.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given an exceptional amount of Parliamentary time to the discussion of these and cognate questions connected with the Army; and I cannot promise that other business shall be put aside in order to extend still further the opportunities that hon. Members have had of giving their opinions on the subject.

We have not had the details of the scheme, and as Volunteer commanding officers, from what details have been given to them, think it will seriously injure the force, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that a reduction shall not be made in the current year?

I am afraid I can give no undertaking.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that churches and manses are being claimed in various parts of Scotland by the legal Free Church, in connection with the erection and maintenance of which the persons so claiming contributed nothing; that many of them were not members of the Free Church at the formation of the United Free Church or even in August last; and if he will take steps to stop such procedure until an opportunity has been given of legislating on the questions at issue.

I am aware, of course, that many churches and manses are claimed in various parts of Scotland by the Free Church. I have got no information with regard to the other portions of the Question; but when the hon. Gentleman asks me to deal legislatively with this subject at once, I can only refer him to the Answers I have been reluctantly obliged to give to similar Questions put to me across the floor of the House.

Is it not the fact that evictions have taken place, and are taking place, in Scotland?

As regards what is actually going on, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper to the Lord-Advocate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any, and, if so, what precedent within the last thirty years for the retention of the position of the Junior Lord of the Treasury by a gentleman who is not a Member of Parliament.

There is a precedent—I do not, think there is a precedent in the last thirty years—of a Minister of the Crown not being in the House of Commons. I think I gave the precedent the other day which referred to a more important office than that of Junior Lord of the Treasury. But I rather doubt whether Mr. Loder is, as a matter of fact, a Junior Lord of the Treasury at this moment. I think he is not. [Laughter.] I observe that that remark excites merriment, and perhaps the House would like to know exactly why I make it. Under the statute of Anne, a Member of this House vacates his seat on accepting office. That is to say, he need not be installed in the office; he need not have the privileges or the duties of office, but he vacates his seat as soon as he formally announces his intention to accept it. Mr. Gerald Loder did make that statement, he did therefore vacate his seat, but he has never been made Junior Lord of the Treasury.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to discover whether Mr. Loder is or is not an official drawing a salary?

No, he is not drawing a salary. He could not draw a salary nor could he legally undertake the duties of the office until the Treasury patent was drawn out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the office is now vacant or not?

Yes.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in selecting persons to fill the post of Junior Lord of the Treasury, it is customary to choose one from each of the three kingdoms with a view to their exercising a general supervision over the Treasury business of their respective countries which differs in many particulars; and why has this custom, which was first broken on the vacating of the seat of Mr. Anstruther, a Scotch Lord of the Treasury, on taking a permanent Civil Service appointment in 1902, ceased to be observed.

The rule to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think, the creation of his own vivid imagination.

May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that I took it from Todd's Parliamentary Government of England, and that it can be proved, as to Mr. Disraeli's case, up to the very hilt?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to take any immediate steps to fill up the office?

The hon. Gentleman will have full notice of any steps.

Before the right hon. Gentleman fills up the office, will he find out whether I was justified in putting my Question?

I have found that out. The hon. Gentleman is not justified.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice— namely, whether he will give a day for the discussion of a Motion in these or very similar terms: "That, in view of recent events in Ireland and the revelations which caused the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, it is in the highest degree desirable in the public interest that the correspondence and other information necessary to enable the House of Commons and the country to form a judgment on the policy and proceedings of the Irish Government since the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell be immediately laid upon the Table."

I understand that this is really a somewhat belated vote of censure upon the administration of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has left office more than a month— five weeks to-day. But, of course, it is the privilege of any one in the right hon. Gentleman's position to insist on a day for a vote of censure, even though it be under circumstances so peculiar and unusual as these, and the only question that remains is as to when that day shall be fixed. I hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair to-morrow on the Civil Service Estimates. On Monday I must, I think, take the Second Reading of the Agricultural Rates Bill, and I had hoped to take on Tuesday the Second Reading of the Scotch Education Bill. I understand from a Question put by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that there is a great desire on the part of Scotch Members to rediscuss a measure which passed its Second Reading last session without a division, and which is introduced this session substantially in its old form. I should have thought that Tuesday afternoon would have been sufficient for the purpose; but if I get an intimation that it is not so, nothing will be gained by having a discussion beginning before Easter and not concluding until some date after Easter, and I will endeavour to make other arrangements. The question arises whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks Tuesday afternoon will be sufficient for his purpose. I am anxious to bring on a vote of censure as soon as I can when notice has been given, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what his opinion is on that point, because if his reply is unfavourable I shall have to fix some early day after Easter.

I should think it unlikely, but still I have to consult others. On the face of it, Tuesday is not a convenient day because of the Easter holiday being so near. It is most inconvenient to Scottish Members to take Scottish legislation immediately before or after the holidays.

It would be very inconvenient to take this debate before Easter, for one reason because everybody hopes to see the right hon. Member for Dover restored to health and in his place during the debate. Manifestly it would be most desirable that that right hon. Gentleman should be present when the debate takes place.

hoped that no arrangement made would defer the introduction of the Aliens Bill.

asked on what day the Unemployed Bill would be taken.

Both these Bills will be introduced before Easter under the Ten Minutes Rule—probably one will be taken on Monday and the other on Tuesday. After the appeal made to me by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, I feel it would be impossible for me to press on the vote of censure before Easter, and, therefore, I must try and make some arrangement to bring it on after Easter. I presume I shall not be asked at the moment to give a date, but, of course, it will not be either on the first or the second day after we come back.

The right hon. Gentleman used the word belated in reference to the vote of censure, and I would like therefore to point out that its "belation," if I may use the word, is largely because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the late Secretary for Ireland would make a statement. We greatly regret the cause of the delay.

Hear, hear!

How long will the Easter holidays last?

said he did not wish to be absolutely pledged, but he thought the most convenient arrangement would be that they should take the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays on Wednesday afternoon, the Motion being so framed that the House at its rising at 7.30 p.m. should separate for the holidays. He should probably suggest that the House reassemble on Tuesday, May 2nd.

moved a reduction from a 1s. to 11d. in the £. He did not complain because the surplus of revenue over expenditure was to be devoted to the purpose of reducing the duty on tea. Of course, the Motion would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem the pledge which he gave last year, but he did not put his Motion forward in regard to that; he should leave hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they-wished to attach importance to it, to take notice of it during the course of the debate. There was the obvious objection to the Motion that, the surplus having been disposed of once, it could not be disposed of again; but there was a way by which the surplus might be increased, and the method he should suggest would, he thought, give the Committee an appropriate opportunity of relieving the payers of the income-tax. There was a current phrase that the income-tax was a war tax. In its true sense, that phrase could not be supported, in view of the fact that we had been in the grip of the income-tax during fifty years of peace; but there was a sense in which the description was true. In the first place, it was obvious that the income-tax was the first resource of a Chancellor of the Exchequer when, in times of war, he wanted to raise additional taxation; and, secondly, there had been for many years a close relationship between the amount of money raised by the income-tax and the expenditure on the Army. He had taken out figures of our income-tax revenue for the last twenty years, the amount collected and the cost of the Army in times of peace. Taking three periods of ten years apart, 1885–6, 1895–6, nd the current financial year, 1905–6, he found a very remarkable coincidence between the growth of the expenditure on the Army and the growth of the income-tax. In 1885–6 we collected in income-tax £15,800,000 and our expenditure on the Army was £17,100,000. The next ten years the amount collected on the income-tax rather declined than increased, and during the same period the expense of the Army was practically stationary. In 1895–6 the income-tax had only risen by £400,000 to £16,200,000, and the cost of the Army had risen during the same period from £17,100,000 to £18,400,000. During the last ten years the amount collected on the income-tax and the cost of the Army had gone up by leaps and bounds till this year the income-tax was estimated at £31,000,000 and the cost of the Army at £29,800,000, so that it appeared the extra money raised by the income-tax had been largely devoted to the extra cost of the Army. The Army Estimates for this year were, he submitted, disastrous; they were Estimates for an Army not in time of peace, but in time of war. Last year the Secretary of State for War said he would not again be responsible for such Estimates, but he had been again responsible, and responsible for Estimates increased since last year by £1,000,000. It was the extravagance in the Army that he wished to aim at by the reduction of the income-tax. It was not as if they had got a good and effective Army. They were still ignorant about the organisation of the Army, and could get neither an explanation from the Secretary of State for War of his Estimates nor any promise of reduction. The extravagance had been rapid; stores were bought at the close of the financial year merely for the purpose of reselling at the beginning of the new financial year. What was to be the resort of the Committee under these circumstances? They must attack the problem from the other side; they must refuse to give the ways and means by means of which this extravagance could alone continue. If they refused 1d. of the income-tax, they could insist upon the Secretary of State for War cutting his coat according to his cloth; they would tell him that, in the opinion of the Committee, he was spending too much money upon the Army and that he must reduce his expenditure. He particularly connected the expenditure on the Army with the increase in the income-tax, and it was for this reason—on the ground of the enormously swollen expenditure on the Army—that he begged to move the reduction of the Income-tax by Id.

said the income-tax pressed very hardly upon Ireland, because, when it was first proposed, he believed in 1850, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day gave a distinct undertaking that it would only be imposed in Ireland temporarily, and that promise had never been redeemed. For more than half a century there was a differentiation between Ireland and England, and Ireland had no sympathy with England's enormous expenditure which alone necessitated an income-tax of 1s. in the £. He agreed in the selection of tea by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for relief, and he believed the Irish representatives would prefer to see the duty on tea, a necessity of life, reduced. But the hon. Member for North Monmouth had demonstrated the close connection between the income-tax and the war expenditure, and they were perfectly in order in forcing economy and retrenchment upon the Government by this method if no other were open to them. Last year there was a distinctly implied promise of economy given by the Secretary of State for War, but it had not been carried out. If, however, they did not furnish the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the necessary money in the shape of a heavy income-tax and other swollen taxes, the great Departments of the State would have to retrench. He had always been of opinion that the income-tax payer was one to which respective Chancellors of the Exchequer turned with a light heart, because, somehow or other, though he supported the Tory Party, and though he grumbled, writing long letters to the papers, he was a long-suffering animal, and it was this comparative immunity with which they had been able to keep the tax at such a high rate which accounted for the indifference with which they treated the claims of the income-tax payer to relief. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the income-tax payer was the first individual entitled to relief, and he could have kept, his promise if he had served notices upon the Army and other Departments that the Treasury would not sanction certain expenditure. He might have told the Secretary of State for War that he wanted him to redeem his promise to effect economies. Expenditure, however, was regulated by policy, and they all knew very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no control over policy. It was inspired from another source. Until the House realised that it was one of its primary duties to scrutinise and control expenditure, the work of the Committee would be waste of time for any practicable purpose. Protests were useless unless the House made up its mind that for the future it would scrutinise the Estimates and insist upon economy and retrenchment.

said he agreed with what the mover had said, and he saw no inconsistency in any Member of the House voting in favour of the Motion on the ground on which it was based. He quite understood the Chancellor's position. He had a certain amount of expenditure to provide for, and he was not going to quarrel with him for the way in which he proposed to provide for it. He had a certain surplus to apply in reduction of taxation, and he (Sir Henry) thought the taxpayer who, had a tax imposed upon him after the war, and totally irrespective of the war— the consumer of tea—had the first claim, The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore would not understand him as finding fault with the arrangement of his Budget, surplus. But the House of Commons had a duty behind all this. He heard, rather with some surprise, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's definition of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He rather reduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that of a Treasury clerk, whose duty it was to provide what the services required, but that he himself was but one of the Cabinet, whose responsibility, of course, he shared. This, he ventured to say, was not the view which the great Chancellors of the Exchequer of the past had taken. The phrase that Mr. Gladstone used was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was "the guardian of the public purse." The individual members of the Government, no doubt, in their respective Departments, all desired to make those Departments as efficient, and in one sense as costly, as possible, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the position of watch-dog upon the whole general expenditure of the country, had a responsibility which no other member of the Cabinet had so distinctly; and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not forget that one young Chancellor of the Exchequer of the past, who was a Tory Chancellor, a Unionist Chancellor, resigned his position because he would not concur in the military expenditure which had been proposed by his colleagues. He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take that course, because he gathered from him that he entertained the opinion that whatever was thought necessary for the safety or good government of the country it was his duty to sanction. He did not hold that doctrine himself, because every head of every Department thought his expenditure was necessary. He would take a broader ground. They were going to raise from the people of the country during the next year between £150,000,000 and £160,000,000 by taxation. He ventured to say this was more than the country could afford to pay. He could understand a Chancellor of the Exchequer in a time of war saying he could not stop to say whether this or that was necessary, and that it was not the time to effect economy. The time to effect economy was the time of peace, when it was a duty to reduce expenditure already sanctioned for war. Let them look at what was done after the Great War. In 1816 or 1817 the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed an indisposition to interfere with the income-tax, though it had pressed upon the nation for many years. The Tory House of Commons, because there was practically no effective Liberal Party in the House of Commons then, would not submit to it, and the Government had to withdraw their scale of expenditure by abandoning the income-tax altogether. He was not asking the right hon. Gentleman to do that. He was asking what every Member of the House believed in his inmost heart could be done by a strong Government—that the Army expenditure should be reduced to such an extent as to enable a reduction of the income-tax. The House had never been in such a position before. Twelve months ago they had a pledge from the Secretary of State for War that he would not stand at the Table to propose increased Estimates again, and now they had this enormous, and almost intolerable expenditure after the war had been ended two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was really imposing a penny in the £ on the income-tax in order to keep up expenditure, when the House of Commons really did not understand what it was for. He should certainly vote for the Amendment, on the ground that the country was spending too much, not only on the Army, because it was not confined to that. The right hon. Gentleman said the House of Commons was always asking for, increased expenditure. He knew it did, and it always would. They rarely heard a proposal by a private Member to reduce expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a difficult position. He had to face both his Cabinet colleagues and the House of Commons who wanted expenditure. This was his duty. It was his duty to defend the public purse, as it was the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army to defend the country in time of war. There was a perpetual war going on; and from something he said yesterday he gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not look with a very favourable eye on the Estimates he had sanctioned, and he did not think he would have found fault with his colleagues if they had proposed less Estimates. He thought he would have discharged an unpleasant but a necessary duty if he had said: "We must next year spend so much and no more. I will not be responsible for Estimates which involve a large expenditure, and I will not sanction Estimates which do not enable me to keep my pledge to the House to take a penny off the income-tax." He submitted to him with very great respect that he had failed in his duty in not insisting upon a reduction of expenditure. The Chancellors of the Exchequer came and went, but the House of Commons did not, and he was sure it was the strong opinion of the country that the expenditure was increasing and ought to be diminished. He thought when they came to face their constituents it would be their view that there should be, and must be, a reduction on our national expenditure if we were to maintain our present national credit and position. On that ground he ventured to support the Amendment.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement as to the method of the collection of the income-tax.

In a narrow sense that is almost outside the subject of this discussion. I do not mean to suggest that it is out of order, but I think we had better finish this discussion before we discuss particular methods of collection. Not one of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken and have expressed their intention of voting for the reduction is opposed to the particular financial measures which, under the circumstances of the year, I have taken. What they challenge is the expenditure, not the manner in which I propose to provide for it. They have indeed alluded, both the mover and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, to a statement I made in reference to the income-tax last year. That statement was to the effect that, in my opinion, the income-tax of 11d. as it then stood and 1s., as I was going to make it, was too much to exact from the income-tax payer as a permanent contribution in times of peace and left us, from the point of view of national finance, which is even a more important consideration, too small a margin on which to draw in the emergency of war. And I said that, in my opinion, the increase I proposed in the income-tax at that time—that the income-tax payer would have the first claim to relief whenever relief became possible. I do not change that opinion; I hold it now as strongly as I held it then, but it is an opinion shared by no hon. or right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House.

dissented.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he would not support it. If having money for the relief of the direct or indirect taxpayer, I had appropriated the whole sum at my disposal for the relief of the income-tax payer——

said that what he said was that he agreed that the consumers had the first claim in respect of taxes put on subsequent to the war.

That is the difference. I do not know that it is of great practical importance at the present moment, because I cannot give effect to my opinion. I have stated distinctly that in my opinion the claim of the income-tax payer came first of all, if I had sufficient money to give effect to it. The first duty, before any relief was given, was, in my opinion, to make greater provision for the paying off of the Debt. I think it essential to the soundness of our national finance that an adequate attempt should be made to pay off the Debt. I therefore adopted measures for that purpose before considering relief at all. Having done that, the amount of surplus I had available was insufficient to carry out my cherished wish of giving relief to the income-tax payer, and, being insufficient for that, I devoted it to the other purpose. I hardly know whether it is necessary for me to make that explanation, but the right hon. Gentleman a little while ago challenged me to reconcile what I was doing with the statement I made last year, and it is for that reason I make it. But what is of more immediate and practical interest is the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman passed upon what he conceived to be my idea of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that the description I gave yesterday was reducing the position of the Chancellor to that of a mere Treasury clerk. I do not know whether he includes under the description "Treasury clerk" those whom I imagine command the highest respect and admiration for their able public service and whose assistance the Chancellor of the Exchequer has.

said he should be the, last person to say anything disparaging of the distinguished men who served the Treasury. What he meant by "mere Treasury clerk" was an official who had no discretion, but who was bound to carry out instructions he had received from his superior officers.

I so understood. He meant that I was ceasing to regard the position as that of a Minister with high responsibility of his own and a special responsibility for the guardianship of the national finances; and that I was regarding myself as a mere instrument to provide whatever expenditure the heads of each Department might in their discretion think it necessary to demand. Nothing that I have said gives the slightest ground for such a supposition as that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is and always must be in a very special sense the guardian of the national finances, but I think it would be a great mistake if he so separated his interests from those of the other Departments of the Government as to allow his colleagues to suppose that they were not also guardians of national finance, and that though they had not a responsibility in his direct and immediate manner, and not necessarily all the knowledge at his command, they had not a very real and great responsibility to secure as far as in them lay that no public money should be wasted in the Departments over which they presided. I think we can easily exaggerate the difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who looks only to the desirability of lowering taxation or securing reduction in our expenditure, discharges but one-half of his duty. He as little performs his duty as the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty who looks only to obtaining everything he can for the Navy or the Army, and has no regard for the demands made upon the national purse. We all have a common responsibility, and we each have a special responsibility to discharge. I have only been a party to Estimates when I thought they were necessary for the safety or the good government of the country. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is a considerable reduction in the Navy this year, and the increase in the Army Estimates was caused by the necessity for re-arming the artillery, and, as long as the Government were not doing this, hon. Gentle men opposite were loud in their condemnation. I think it is a little unreasonable that they should turn round and denounce me for providing money for doing that for which they were willing to denounce the Government when it was not being done. The three main sources of expenditure are military, naval, and financial; and the interests of the three are sometimes different and conflicting. I might almost say that they are always different and always conflicting. The result is that in any given year there must be something in the nature of a compromise between the exigencies of finance, and military and naval defence. When I was at the Admiralty I used to be told that the design of a battleship was the result of a compromise in respect of defensive power, speed, coal endurance, and other factors. So it is with the problems of finance. In military, naval, or civil expenditure, you must balance the pros and cons against one another; and it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being to see that the spending Departments make a good case, as far as he can judge, for the demands put forward, that against those demands there have to be set the disadvantages of high taxation or a heavy debt, and that due weight is given to all the financial considerations which must affect the rate of our expenditure. That is my conception of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to take account of all these factors, to secure from his colleagues that they shall take account of them also, and not to separate himself wholly from the interests of military or naval defence or think that his whole duty is discharged if he can come down to the House of Commons and say the Estimates of the year are one or two million less than the year before, having no regard as to the cost at which the reduction is to be obtained. Of course, our taxation is high, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentlemen who appear to believe that it is much beyond the means of our people. I do not believe we are unable to bear even this high taxation, though I sometimes think we might distribute it in such a way as to cause less friction and to make it less burdensome than it is at present. One thing I will venture to observe to the Committee. It is the repetition of an observation made many years ago by Sir Stafford Northcote. Unless you are prepared to continue, at any rate, a great part of the taxation you impose in war time, you cannot have any reduction in the burden of the debt created by the war. It is only by continuing a proportion, at any rate, of the war taxes that you can hope to reduce the burden of debt incurred during war. That should be our first consideration. It has been my strong contention. It is upon that conviction that I have acted, and it is owing to it that I am obliged to keep the income-tax at the present high rate. No one is more anxious than I am to relieve the payers of it. I am probably more anxious than any of my critics who are supporting this Motion on the other side of the House.

said he wished to associate himself with a statement which had proceeded from both sides of the House as to the Treasury officials. In his opinion it was rarely that any country possessed officials so able and high principled as those who were in the Treasury. Indeed he thought he saw some of the best qualities of the Treasury officials in this very Budget, and that was not the case in every Budget. As to the situation which had been brought before the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opinion the right hon. Gentleman had exercised sound discretion in the course he had pursued. It was very much better that he should do as he had done in making provision for the reduction of debt, which was the worst burden of all, rather than take off taxation. There was, of course, the other underlying question, whether he had advocated sufficiently, and if he had advocated sufficiently, whether he had been adequately supported by the Prime Minister in his advocacy of that frugality which was our first need. On that point he could not agree that all had been done that could be done. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were committed to an expenditure this year of £150,000,000. It was really £170,000,000, because in addition to the budgeted amount of £141,000,000, there were interceptions of revenue, for local taxation account, £9,700,000; expenditure chargeable against capital, £9,000,000; and appropriations-in-aid, some £10,000,000; all of which were receipts and all expenditure. If these three items were added to the £141,000,000 the expenditure was really and truly close upon £170,000,000. It was well that the House and the country should remember the expenditure was not alone that which was budgeted for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that in addition under the present system there were irregular loans and irregular interceptions for local taxation account or appropriations-in-aid. In short, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Exchequer total they had to add £30,000,000.

You must deduct what comes from the Post Office.

said he thought not, but he would rather not go into that question now. Our national accounts professed to be, should be, and by Act of Parliament were declared to be, accounts of receipts and expenditure, and as soon as they left that system for the present system of leaving out of the account vast and increasing items on both sides, so soon did they get into misrepresentations and into incapacity for comparing one year with another. But at what was even more important was the urgent and pressing need for retrenchment. This had not been duly recognised. His earnest conviction was that the limits of economy and frugality had not been reached, nay, had been scarcely approached, by this Budget. There were opportunities for effecting reductions in expenditure not by hundreds of thousands but by millions. They might save several millions on the Army and some millions more on the Navy. The Navy expenditure was an extraordinary example this year of what could be done by the exercise of intelligent retrenchment without loss, but rather with gain, of efficiency. He would suggest that the same kind of brain power should be applied to the Army. He would apply it also in some measure to the Civil Service, where instances could be found of three or four men doing one man's work. It was in small economies and strenuous frugalities the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find the most useful engine for effecting reductions in expenditure, and he should have the support of the Prime Minister in that most useful and necessary course of procedure. They had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that he had not that support.

I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but at the same time I do not like to sit while he is referring to the relations between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer without saying, at any rate, that I have from the first day I took office received the fullest and most generous support that anyone could desire.

said he was exceedingly glad to hear that, but neither his own efforts nor the support of the