To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the total number of workmen discharged from Portsmouth, Chatham, Devonport, Sheerness, and Pembroke Dockyards since June, 1903, for causes other than misconduct. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The total number of men discharged from the dockyards since June, 1903, for causes other than misconduct, are as follows:—

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of estates or untenanted farms purchased by the Congested Districts Board in unscheduled districts since the Congested Districts Act of 1901 was passed; and the number of cases in which, in respect to such estates or untenanted farms, the Congested Districts Board requested the Lord-Lieutenant to exercise the power conferred upon him by the 3rd Section of said Act. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of estates and untenanted farms purchased is thirty-eight. The number referred to in the second inquiry is one. In the case of untenanted farms it is not necessary for the Board's purpose to put into force the powers of Section 3. This is only necessary in the case of tenants or tenant purchasers to whom the Board desire to give additional land for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings situated in non-congested districts.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Board of Agriculture has been called to the complaints made regarding the injury done to the mackerel fishing industry of Ireland by captures of immature mackerel by Scotch fishing boats engaged in the herring fishery at an early season of the year; and whether, in view of the fact that the Scotch Fisheries Board prohibit fishing for herrings in the Scotch fishing grounds before the middle of June, steps will be taken to protect the Irish fishing grounds from this destructive practice.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that injury is caused to the autumn mackerel fishing and fish curing industry in Ireland by the extensive capture of immature mackerel in herring fishing nets or seines at an early period of the fishing season, and that the haak fishing is threatened with destruction owing to the growth of this practice; and whether steps will be taken by the fishery inspectors of the Irish Board of Agriculture to prohibit all herring fishing in Irish waters before the first or second week in June. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is the fact that small mackerel have been captured in large quantities by the herring boats that fish from Kinsale during the month of May. This could only be prevented by stopping the spring herring fishing off the south coast during that month, the only month in which it can be profitably carried on. The entire question was investigated at public inquiries held at Kinsale and other places in 1892, with the result that no by-law could be framed that would satisfactorily meet its different aspects. The scientific adviser to the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture is of opinion that the capture of small mackerel by herring nets in serious quantity is sporadic rather than regular, that it is, in fact, an accident in a most important industry, and appears to have recurred through a great number of years, which commenced long before any failure of the mackerel fishery, spring or harvest, could be laid to its account. The Department are not aware that the Scotch Fishery Board prohibit herring fishing on the Scotch fishing grounds before the middle of June. At the inquiries above referred to, evidence was submitted as to the destruction of considerable numbers of small and unsaleable haak by the herring nets. This seems to be unavoidable, but it does not afford sufficient justification for prohibiting a profitable herring fishing in the month of May.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the death of a young woman at Carlisle, whilst having teeth extracted by an unregistered dentist; and whether, in view of the frequency of deaths from anæsthetics administered by unqualified dentists, he will consider the advisability of promoting legislation for the protection of the public. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have received a report of the facts of this case from the coroner, and I shall communicate them to the Privy Council Office for the Lord President's consideration. The propriety of the action of the unregistered dentist in this case may be considered open to question, but I do not think further proceedings are called for. It should be remembered that unregistered practitioners who undertake serious operations resulting in death may be prosecuted for manslaughter.

; To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an inquest at the City Coroner's Court, n the 25th April last, at which the jury unanimously expressed the opinion that it should be made compulsory for all poisons to be sold in bottles of standard shape, and easily distinguishable by touch; will he state whether he will introduce legislation this session; and, in view of the possibility of early legislation, will he seek the opinion of Metropolitan coroners on the subject (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The rider to the verdict of the jury in the case referred to was communicated to me by the coroner. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 13th March† respecting legislation. The matter is under the consideration of the Privy Council Office, who will have full information before them.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the case of James Nicholson, who was sentenced at the South - Western Police Court some ten days ago to fourteen days imprisonment for stealing a loaf of bread; whether he has been able to order his discharge; and, if so, on what date was the prisoner released. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have made inquiry of the magistrate who dealt with this case and find that it is true that the prisoner, whose age appears to be nineteen, and not seventeen, as stated in the Question, declared to the policeman who arrested him that he was hungry and that stealing was the only way in which he had been able to live. It appeared, however, that he was charged with an offence last month and allowed to go to a Salvation Army Home. That he left this place after a few days because, according to his own account, he did not like the people or the work, and that previously to this he had given up respectable employment that was open to him. I have also received a letter from the Police Court missionary, to whom the hon. Member referred in his previous Question, in which he points out that the newspaper report of the statement he

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 1204.

made in this case is imperfect and inaccurate, and explains that the trouble he had taken about Nicholson on a previous occasion had been of no avail. In these circumstances I see no reason for advising any interference with the lenient sentence passed by the magistrate. I may add that the reports of Police Court cases which appear in the daily Press are necessarily brief, and, in my experience, are often extremely misleading.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what progress has been made with the underground telegraph cable to the North. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The cable is complete as far as Carlisle; the pipes are all laid between Carlisle and Glasgow; and the cable for these pipes has been ordered, and will be drawn in during the present year. The underground line from London to Glasgow will then be complete.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if Holy Rood Roman Catholic Church. Swindon, was, prior to 1903, certified for worship and the registration of marriages; and if, on the sale of this church in 1903, Holy Rood temporary church was similarly certified and the usual fees paid; if it is the case that a new church has now been completed on what is substantially the same site for the congregation of Holy Rood Church, Swindon, and that the Registrar - General has thereupon decided that a fresh certification of the church is necessary for the purposes of worship and to licensing of marriages; and what are the reasons for this decision; and what is the total amount in fees which will have been paid in respect of the original church, the temporary church, and the new church of the Holy Rood, Swindon. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have communicated with the Registrar-General on this subject, and I understand that the circumstances are as stated in the Question. The Registrar - General informs me "that his decision is based on the fact that, although the new Holy Rood Church is built on the same property as the temporary church, there is no internal communication between them. The two churches cannot, therefore, be held to be one and the same building, the only ground on which the statutory fees could be remitted. This ruling is in accordance with Section 19 of 6 and 7 William 4, c. 85, and with precedent, and it is necessary, therefore, that the new church should be certified for worship and registered for marriages, if it is desired that marriages should be legally celebrated therein. The fees that have been paid and are payable are—

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the action taken by various county councils and other representative public bodies in Ireland in the direction of reafforestation, and the feeling in Ireland on the subject, measures will be adopted for the purpose of preventing Irish landlords from cutting down the standing timber on their properties when selling to their tenants under the Land Purchase Act of 1903. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Land Commissioners have no jurisdiction such as is suggested, nor are they aware that timber has been cut down by landlords in anticipation of sales. In the case of tenant-purchasers, however, the Commissioners possess the ordinary legal rights of mortgagees to restrain the purchasers from committing waste of the nature indicated, and thereby depreciating the security.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can state the number of cases on the King-Harman Estate and Sandford Estate respectively in which they have approached or negotiated with tenants in possession of grazing lauds or non-residential holdings for the sale to them of the tenant's interest in same for the purpose of the division of these lands amongst the holders of uneconomic holdings; in how many cases have these negotiations been successful; and on what terms is the money proposed to be repaid which is advanced for the purchase of the tenants' interests. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In five cases on the estate of E. C. King-Harman, the Estates Commissioners have intimated that if the vendor should buy up the tenants' interest and offer the holdings to them as untenanted land, they will be prepared to consider favourably the question of their purchase for the purpose of the enlargement of smaller holdings on this estate. The advances will be made for the purchase of the fee simple of the lands as untenanted.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in some of the compounds in South Africa Chinese who refuse to go down the mines unless paid 2s. per day are tied up to a pole by their pigtails in such a way that their toes only just touch the ground, and are then thrashed; and will he give instructions for an immediate discontinuance of such punishment. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No, Sir; I am not aware of this.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if it is his intention to form a reserve of civilian surgeons in connection with the Royal Army Medical Corps, in view of the experiences gained in the South African War. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The subject is receiving consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any intention of carrying out in the near future the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission appointed to consider the reorganisation of the Auxiliary Forces. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have every hope that it may be possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the direction of improving the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. But for reasons which I have frequently pointed out in debate, these changes cannot be made on a large scale at once. Most of the recommendations involve the expenditure of money which is not at present available for this purpose.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible to ascertain who supplied a large portion of the stores destroyed in South Africa, he will consider the advisability of issuing instructions that all stores supplied to the War Office should bear a distinctive mark, in order that the contractors of all stores may be identified when necessary. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Under existing instructions, stores supplied to the War Office are required, as far as possible, in the case of those which are capable of being stamped or branded, to bear the distinctive mark of the contractor concerned. It must be remembered that there are some stores which do not readily admit of being so stamped or branded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the contract of April 19th, 1900, between the Crown Agents and Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Co., has been fulfilled in respect of Clauses 2 and 3 thereof; and, if not, have any steps been taken to bring about the full services contracted for.

The contract has been fulfilled in regard to all the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, except in so far as two of the steamers now on the line have at times failed to show themselves capable of maintaining the speed required by Clause 3 (b). This matter has formed the subject of correspondence and negotiations between the Jamaica Government, the contractor, and myself, with a view to securing satisfactory fulfilment of the intention of the contract.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the recent accident near Petersfield, in which a naval officer riding a motor-bicycle was knocked down by a cart, which was immediately driven away by the man in charge, while the officer lay stunned and wounded on the ground; whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the identity of the cart.

Yes, Sir; and I have obtained a report upon the case from the Hampshire police. I find that the identity of the driver and of the cart has been ascertained, and that inquiries are being made by the police with a view to proceedings being taken against the driver for an offence under the Highway Act.

I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he will make inquiry into the system existing at many provincial head post offices whereby junior and unestablished officers are placed on counter duties in positions involving monetary responsibility; and whether, in view of the fact that all losses have to be made good, the staff shall have adequate opportunities for learning the work before being entrusted with the responsibility, and that only officers of experience shall in future be entrusted with counter duties.

If the hon. Member will furnish me with some concrete instances of the system to which he refers I will make inquiries; but I may say that it is the general practice to assign important counter duties, involving considerable monetary responsibility, to the more experienced officers as far as possible.

When I give the noble Lord information in a concrete case he answers me in the abstract.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when it is intended to issue the scheme dealing with the increase of overseerships, and whether promotions will date from April 1st, 1905; whether the claims of members of the staff in provincial head offices, who have performed supervising duties of three or four months duration annually for several years, will be considered; and whether, in connection with the proposed scheme and promotions, it is intended to take into account the fact that at many offices ordinary members of the staff are in full charge of the business during the despatch of important mails.

The examination of the duties at the various offices is not yet quite completed. The resulting promotions will take effect from the date of my approval, and I am not prepared to date them from April 1st. Due consideration will be given to duties involving supervision.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the names of the local authorities who have applied for power to limit the speed of motor-cars within their area to ten miles an hour, and have had their application refused; whether in each case the application has been successfully opposed by the Automobile Club, the Motor Union, or other motorist clubs; and whether, in view of the many recent accidents caused by motor-cars driving at a high speed through populous places, he will look more favourably upon the application of local authorities to limit the speed of motor-cars to ten miles an hour in those places.

The names of the local authorities who have made applications of the kind referred to which have not been complied with are—The Common Council of the City of London, and the town councils of Beverley, Bury, Dover, Kingston-on-Thames, Leeds, Leigh, Newport (Monmouthshire), Todmorden, Winchester, and Whitehaven. The application was in each case opposed by an organisation such as is mentioned in the Question, there was a local inquiry at which both sides were heard, and the inspector reported the evidence to the Local Government Board together with the result of his own observation. As regards the last part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Member that I will give unprejudiced consideration to any application that may be made to me for the imposition of a speed limit in populous places.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of private burial grounds that exist in connection with monastic and conventual institutions in the United Kingdom; does he from time to time give his sanction for these private burial grounds; and, if so, how many have been sanctioned within the past five-years.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board under the Burial Acts only extends to England and Wales, and their approval of the opening of a new burial ground is required where the ground is in the Metropolis as defined by the Burial Act, 1852, or within two miles of any part of it, or where there is in force an Order on Council which for the protection of the public health renders such approval necessary. Since the transfer to the Board on January 1st, 1901, of the jurisdiction which the Secretary of State previously exercised in this matter, their approval has been given to the opening of five new burial grounds in connection with monastic and conventual institutions.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the increased office accommodation shortly at the dis-po al of the Government, and with a view to preserving a valuable open space, he will consider the possibility of removing the recently erected one-storey extension of Gwydyr House.

The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give any assurance in this matter before the completion of the Government buildings now in course of construction.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the period of the year prior to which the Scotch Fishery Board prohibits fishing for herrings in the Scotch fishing grounds.

No prohibition of herring fishing by the authority of the Fishery Board exists in Scotland, but for local statutory regulations I may refer the hon. Member to 52 and 53 Vict. cap. 23, Section 5, which relates to that section of the coast extending from Ardnamurchan Point to the Mull of Galloway.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate what steps have been taken by the Secretary for Scotland, or are going to be taken, to carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Board of Manufactures of two years ago.

The Secretary for Scotland has recently discussed the situation with representatives of the Town Council of Edinburgh and various bodies interested, and has the whole subject under his immediate consideration. He hopes shortly to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if, in view of the fact that postage to the local officers under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, must be prepaid and registered, and that the local officers obtain a refund for postage and registration of their replies, will he say why the public have not the same facilities.

Local registrars of titles are refunded the cost of postages officially incurred by them because they are public officials. I am not aware of any reason why the public should have the same facilities; but the matter is one for the Postmaster-General.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the Report of the Trinity College Commission will be issued; and whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House as a Parliamentary Paper.

As already stated, I have received, and am considering, this Report, which will be laid on the Table in the course of the present week.

The Attorney-General promised it should be published last March, and you promised it for the middle of April, yet we have not got it yet!

I do not remember any such promise on my part.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much money has been spent in trying to improve flax culture in Ireland since the Government commenced to make special loans and grants with that object; and whether he will lay Reports showing what success has attended these efforts.

Since 1900 the net expenditure of the Department of Agriculture in this matter has been £8,490. The results of the experiments are detailed in the Department's Annual Reports and Quarterly Journals.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it appears that a number of Catholic gentlemen in the veterinary branch of the Irish Agricultural Department are restricted to practically stationary salaries of £95 a year, while increases of salary have been granted to certain other officials, he will state what steps he proposes taking in order to secure that any economy effected in the remuneration of the Catholic officials shall not be availed of to increase further the salaries of higher paid officials.

This Question repeats an insinuation which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is entirely unjustifiable. I have nothing to add to the replies already given, except to say that the officials in the veterinary branch are on the scale of salary fixed for the grade to which they belong, and that their salaries are not stationary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these clerks will not reach their maximum for twenty-five years?

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to granting an inquiry into the alleged grievances of these clerks?

I see no reason why an inquiry should be granted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that none of the evicted tenants have as yet been reinstated on the Warden Estate at Sneem; can he state the reason of the delay; and can he say whether any negotiations have been opened with the Estates Commissioners for the purchase of the remaining portions of the estate.

I have no information as to the first part of the Question; no responsibility for any delay in the reinstatement of the evicted tenants can rest, however, with the landlord. The estate, which is a large and complicated one, is being dealt with by the Commissioners, but some time must elapse, I understand, before the sale can be completed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. E. Downing, late chief inspector under the Irish Board of National Education, made any report on the state of education in Ireland since that published in the Appendix to the 68th Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for the year 1901; if so, why his report is not published in the Appendix to the 69th Report or in the Appendix to the 70th Report recently issued; will he cause such a report to be laid on the Table of the House; and whether, if Mr. Downing's report was not presented to the Board as customary, he can state why the usual course was dispensed with on this occasion.

Yes, Sir; both of the chief inspectors, Messrs. Downing and Purser, made general reports for 1902 which were not published. These reports consisted largely of extracts taken from the reports of the senior inspectors, and the Commissioners decided that it was preferable to publish the latter reports in their entirety. This was accordingly done. Mr. Downing did not furnish any subsequent report. He has since retired from the service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Cragg and Ardcrone Farms, county Kerry, purchased by the Congested Districts Board over a year ago, are practically derelict and cannot be used for any suitable purpose by the Board owing to the circumstances under which they were purchased; and, if so, whether the Board would be prepared to reconsider the question of these farms with the view of effecting a reinstatement of the original tenants who were evicted from them.

These lands have been fully stocked with cattle during the past year. As to the remainder of the Question I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to his previous Question of the 10th April.†

; Is it not the fact that the cattle are merely the property of the local graziers and farmers and that no practical use is being made of the farms?

I do not know who are the owners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. John Drury, chairman of the Boyle United Irish League, has been appointed by the Estates Commissioners, at a salary, to distribute the bog lands on the King Harman Estate to the tenants.

I am informed by the Commissioners that Mr. Drury has been provisionally appointed secretary to trustees in whom it is proposed to vest certain bogs on this estate. The appointment, however, is one for which the Commissioners are not in any way responsible, and no payment in respect of it will be made from moneys within the control of the Commissioners.

† See (4) Debates, exliv., 1028.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Corglass and Cornakelly Estate of Mr. O'Brien is yet in a position to be offered for sale to the tenants; whether the negotiations which were on foot some months ago have been suspended or are proceeding; and when these tenants may expect to be vested.

The difficulties experienced in completing the arrangements for the sale of this estate have now been surmounted, and active steps are being taken for its sale to the Estates Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons which induced the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland to abolish the preparatory grade in examinations under the Board; and also why it was that the age limit for the junior grade was increased.

The preparatory grade has not been abolished, but the award of exhibitions in that grade has been discontinued for some years, for the reasons stated by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover in reply to a Question on June 20th, ‡ 1901. The age limit for the pass examinations of the junior and higher grades was increased in order to enable students between sixteen and nineteen to qualify for certificates. The limit of age for candidates for exhibitions and prizes has not been increased.

Is this to be a permanent arrangement?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed

‡ See (4) Debates, xcv., 915.

at meetings of the four deaneries of the diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise; and whether the protest against Rule 127 (b) contained in these resolutions will receive attention.

The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present appointment of Mr. Alexander W. Percival, of Minard, county Longford, as a justice of the peace for county Longford, and will he say on whose recommendation the lord-lieutenant of the county made this appointment; how many Catholic and Protestant magistrates have since April 1st, 1899, been appointed in county Longford; and whether, in view of the fact that ninety-one per cent, of the population of county Longford is Catholic, he will suggest to the Lord Chancellor the desirability of more equitably manning the magisterial bench in that county.

Mr. Percival was, in the usual course, appointed by, the Lord Chancellor upon the recommendation of His Majesty's lieutenant of the county. Ten magistrates have been appointed since April 1st, 1899, of whom it is believed six are members of the Irish Church, three are Catholics, and one a Methodist. The Lord Chancellor and the lieutenant of the county are always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified Catholic gentlemen which may be brought to their notice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions public boards in the county have sent forward the names of responsible Catholic gentlemen, and no attention has been paid to them?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the fact that appointments to the office of visiting physician to Irish lunatic asylums have been abolished, he will explain how the Lord - Lieutenant has been able to sanction the appointment of a visiting physician to the Youghal Auxiliary Asylum.

The appointment of visiting physician was abolished prior to the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898; but Section 84 (1) (b) of this Act empowers asylum committees to appoint an assistant medical officer, who is under the control of the resident superintendent. This is the appointment the Lord-Lieutenant sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board is willing to adopt the Order issued by the President of the English Local Government Board, dated April 26th, 1905, and addressed to the several Poor Law Unions in England and Wales, making provision for the supply of necessary food to underfed children attending elementary schools, in view of the extent to which poverty exists in Ireland.

The Local Government Board are advised that they have no power under the Irish Poor Law to make such an Order. The legal question will be referred to the law officers for advice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a man named Owen Cleary was convicted at the summer assizes, held in Enniskillen on July 8th, 1904, and sentenced to three years penal servitude, that subsequently the statements made at the trial were found to be untrue, that a memorial was afterwards presented to the Lord-Lieutenant narrating all the facts as to Cleary's innocence, that the prayer of the memorial was refused, that after the publication of the Beck case Cleary was requested by the Governor of Maryborough Prison to send forward another memorial, dated January 12th, 1905, and that his sentence was commuted by the Lord-Lieutenant on February 1st; and whether, seeing that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, he will say what steps the Government propose to take by way of compensating Cleary for the injury he has sustained.

This man was, in the opinion of the learned Judge who tried the case, properly convicted of rape. The only new information subsequently obtained was that the woman had not given her true name, and that there was some suspicion that her character was not so good as she had represented it to be; but nothing transpired to show that the accused was not guilty. The Judge, however, informed the Lord-Lieutenant that had he been aware that the woman's character was not as represented at the trial, he would probably have passed a less severe sentence. The memorials only prayed for a reduction of the sentence, and His Excellency, taking into consideration the matters I have mentioned, ultimately ordered the release of the accused on January 28th last. No miscarriage of justice, as is referred to, occurred in the case. The Governor of the prison made no request or suggestion to the prisoner.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the auditor has not yet signed the accounts in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal.

The audit of the accounts of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, which embraces those in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal, has been completed for the half-year ended 30th September, 1904. The audit for the half-year to 31st March last has not yet been undertaken.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house built by public money for a resident medical superintendent in connection with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal is at present occupied by a Roman Catholic chaplain; and, if so, will he explain whether this change has the sanction of the Inspectors of Lunacy.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative. There is no legal provision which requires that the sanction of the inspectors should be obtained in such a matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the physician lives within a very easy distance of the asylum, and that no complaint has ever been received that the welfare of the patients is neglected, but that, on the contrary, the arrangement gives complete satisfaction.

No complaints have been brought to my knowledge.

But is it legal for this house thus to be occupied?

I cannot answer that until I have looked more fully into the circumstances. I am inquiring into all the matters connected with this asylum just now.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the Local Government Board auditors in Ireland were previously accountants, or held or hold any certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or any kindred body; whether he can state if the Public Bodies Order, 1904, for Ireland was approved of by the present staff of auditors; whether the effect of the Order will be to confine the duties of the auditors to the correction of figures and the noting of illegal payments, and to throw upon the local bodies the onus of preparing for the auditors a draft accountant's statement; and whether he is aware that such a system was unanimously condemned in the Report of the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

Ten out of the staff of seventeen auditors had experience of public accounts prior to their appointment. The Answer to the second inquiry is in the affirmative. The Order will not have the effect suggested in the third inquiry, but will render the audit more searching, and consequently of greater value. The Joint Committee on Municipal Trading expressed the opinion that the duties of auditors should not be confined to the mere certification of figures; but such limited system of audit does not prevail in Ireland. The recommendations of the Committee did not apply to Ireland.

How many have a certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or some similar body?

I cannot say.

I can. There are none.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the recommendation of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading that none but members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or of the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors should be appointed by local authorities as auditors, he will undertake that in any future appointments as public auditors in Ireland the same qualifications will be insisted upon that the Joint Committee urged in the case of the local auditors who are subject to the public auditors.

Local Government Board auditors in Ireland have to satisfy the Civil Service Commissioners not only of their knowledge of accounts, but also of their general proficiency, including a knowledge of the Poor Laws. The questions which come before them for decision are questions of law quite as much as of accounts. No change in the present system of appointment is proposed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Municipal Trading laid down that the Local Government Departments should consult the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Incorporated Society of Accountants and Auditors before prescribing a standard form of keeping accounts for local authorities; and whether any such conference or consultation took place prior to the issue of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, for Ireland.

This recommendation of the Committee had special reference to the question of municipal trading, and was not extended by them to the case of Ireland, where such trading has made little headway. The Answer to the latter inquiry is in the negative. Local authorities in Ireland, before embarking on any large scheme of municipal trading, will be required to submit their accounts in such matters in a form which will meet the Committee's recommendations on the subject.

said that, as a matter of fact, the local authorities had themselves to do certain work because the auditors were not competent.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the persistent attacks made on a permanent official of the Irish Government in connection with the case of Constable Anderson, he will grant a public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson.

No, Sir. I see no reason to grant the proposed inquiry.

May I ask whether, in view of the exceedingly serious nature of the accusations which are being made by hon. Members against certain members of the Irish Government, and in view of the conflict that has arisen between the Member for Dover and certain Members of the House on matters of fact, the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it is in the public interest to grant a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case.

May I ask whether the Under-Secretary for Ireland has authorised the hon. Members for Waterford and East Mayo to take up this question?

I will at once answer that insinuation. I have had no communication, direct or indirect, with the Under-Secretary on this question.

Then the hon. Member is unauthorised?

Were you authorised by Lord Londonderry?

I am certain that my hon. friend is mistaken as to the Under-Secretary having any knowledge or any share in the putting of this Question. As the hon. Gentleman who put the additional Question is aware, a controversy has arisen over two totally different subjects—first, whether or not the case of Constable Anderson was properly dealt with; and, secondly, the share which the Under-Secretary had in the conduct of the case. On the first head I have to say that there seems to be no necessity for an inquiry, and on the second point my right hon. friend the late Chief Secretary has stated that the charges against the Under-Secretary are unfounded and ought not to have been brought forward. I have examined the Papers dealing with the subject, and my view agrees with that of my right hon. friend the Member for Dover that there is no necessity for an inquiry, nor could a good result come out of further investigation, which, as I am advised, is unnecessary.

In view of the fact that recently in the House a statement was made by the late Chief Secretary, which I cannot accept as having been accurately repeated by the right hon. Gentleman, and was challenged——

I rise to a point of order——

The hon. Member for East Mayo is in possession of the House.

Hon. Members opposite are evidently very much afraid of the facts. I notice with interest their extreme anxiety. I ask whether, in view of what occurred recently in the House, when the hon. Member for North Antrim flatly contradicted the right hon. Member for Dover, and asserted publicly in the House that the charges made against the Under-Secretary for Ireland were absolutely true——

again rose to order amid loud cries of "Sit down."

He is rising to a point of order.

Why do not you name him?

Will the hon. Member wait and see the purport of the Question.

Whether in view of the fact that the Chief Secretary will not either grant a public inquiry into all the facts of this case or inform the House whether he has studied the facts himself, he will make a public statement in reply to the charges brought publicly in the House by the Member for North Antrim?

I have already stated that I do not consider any inquiry necessary, and that no good object could be served by holding it. I do not understand what form it is suggested that the inquiry should take, nor what its scope should be in order to carry out the object of the hon. Member. I stated just now that I had myself examined the case, and I confirm absolutely the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover and the action taken in this matter—action for which he was alone responsible—that the charges made against the Under-Secretary of having unduly influenced the policy of the Government were unfounded. I do not see that any good object would be served by an inquiry, nor do I realise what form any such inquiry could take.

My Question on the Paper indicated fully the form and the scope of the inquiry—namely, "A public inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the dismissal and reinstatement of Constable Anderson." Inasmuch as so much public scandal has arisen, I desire that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts. I ask tine right hon. Gentleman, however, whether I am to understand his reply as implying that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell in connection with this case.

I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said on the subject. I have stated frankly what I believe to be the true story of this case, and I cannot in answer to Questions deal more fully with the subject nor add anything to what I have said.

What we desire is that all the facts should be made public. We are not afraid of facts.

You are making a speech.

That is more than you can make.

Am I to understand, from what the Chief Secretary has said, that there is not an atom of foundation for any of the charges made against Sir Antony MacDonnell?

I have said frankly what I believe to be the true history of the case, and I cannot deal further with it in answer to a Question.

I beg to give notice, then, that I shall raise this question again on the Chief Secretary's salary.

And the Ulstermen will run away.

The cowards.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why on last week the Reverend Father Dunne, C.C., on being changed by the Bishop of the diocese from the parish of Cappatagle to Ballymackward, had to telegraph to the district inspector for permission for his friends in Cappatagle to accompany him to his new sphere of duty, which is in the neighbouring parish.

I am unable to explain why the reverend gentleman telegraphed this inquiry to the district inspector, but the reply given by the latter was what might have been anticipated, namely, that there would be no interference with the band on such an occasion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Rothwell, the petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, is in possession of eighteen acres of the Mahon, Ballydonlan, property purchased by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, how long has he been, and what is the nature of his tenancy.

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answers I have already given him. No further proceedings before the Commissioners have taken place.

I have never got an Answer to the Question: is Mr. Rothwell in possession of these eighteen acres. I know for a positive fact he is.

It seems to me that our positions should be reversed, for the hon. Member is giving rather than asking for information. I cannot help thinking the hon. Member is referring to the desmesne lands.

No, I am not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Martin Shea has signed an agreement to purchase a portion of the grazing land on the Mahon, Ballydonlan, Estate, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, which he previously held on the eleven months system; and, if so, what was his rent per acre then compared with future rent to the Government; and whether several of the tenants who signed agreements to purchase have since petitioned the Commissioners to take back the land, as they consider the future rent an impossible one.

Mr. Shea has purchased ten acres on this estate, which he held as tenant. His rent was £1 8s. per acre, and the purchase annuity amounts to £1 3s. 6d. per acre. No such application as is mentioned in the last inquiry has been received by the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when it is intended to hold the next examination for clerkships in the Dublin Law Courts; and whether there will be open competition for future appointments.

I am informed that the next examination for junior clerkships in the High Court in Ireland will, according to the ordinary course, be held whenever the necessity shall arise for filling a vacancy by open competition.

Is an examination always held when a vacancy occurs?

Yes, Sir, whenever it is thought desirable.

Are any clerks appointed without examination?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in a position to state if any, and, if so, what, progress has been made with the Pirrie-Iveagh motor scheme during the past six months; and, if not, whether he can state if the scheme has been abandoned.

I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. and learned friend to the hon. Member's previous Questions of 2nd† and 9th March.†

My Question deals with the last six months only.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme has been abandoned?

I am not sure. There was a condition that the county councils should make certain improvements of the roads, and that has not been acted upon.

What progress has been made in the last six months?

I believe none.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that with a view to promoting afforestation in Ireland it has been decided to have an Arbor Day celebrated in November; and can he say whether any, and, if so, what, facilities for the purchase of trees will be given to local associations throughout the country which desire to celebrate the day.

No representations have been made to the Department as to an Arbor Day celebration this year. Facilities are given under the county agricultural and horticultural schemes for encouraging the planting of trees. These include the purchase and re-sale at cost price of trees to residents in counties which adopt the scheme.

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

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 187, 929.

of Ireland when the next sitting of the Sub-Commission will be held in Killarney.

On the 27th June next.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why there is a postal service from Cavan to Belturbet by the 9.50 a.m. train, and what is the cost of same; whether, seeing that Cavan has this service, he will explain why Belturbet is denied similar facilities; and will he say what would be the cost of a service from Belturbet to Cavan by the 9.10 a.m. train.

The mail from Cavan to Belturbet by the 9.45 a.m. train was commenced many years ago. If the hon. Member desires me to inquire whether its continuance is justified, I will do so. Its cost cannot be precisely ascertained, but it is probably about the same as the cost of the suggested bag in the other direction which, as I told the hon. Member recently, would be about £6 or £8 a year. The amount of correspondence which it is anticipated would be included in a bag from Belturbet to Cavan would be so small that there is no sufficient ground for the establishment of the proposed despatch.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the lock-out by the master builders of Dublin of their bricklayers; whether he is aware that the masters' association have refused to submit the question upon which the lock-out took place to arbitration; and whether, seeing that work on several Government contracts has been stopped owing to the lock-out, and in view of the distress existing among the families of the labourers and others owing to the prolonged stoppage of work, he will use his office, as head of the Conciliation Board, to induce the employers to submit the point which led up to the lock-out to arbitration.

My attention has been called to the dispute in the Dublin building trade. I understand that the employers are prepared for arbitration on certain conditions. No application has been received from either party by the Board of Trade to take action under the Conciliation Act.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the employees are prepared to accept arbitration which the employers are not, and will he see that Government work is not stopped by this dispute? Will the Department put in force the Arbitration Act?

was understood to reply in the negative.

Then what is the use of the Act?

I am informed there is no Government contract concerned except one involving about £30.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Marine Insurance Bill.

I cannot fix a date for taking this Bill, but I do not think there need be any serious obstacle in the way of passing it as I understand that the measure is practically uncontroversial.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the findings of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the ritualistic practices and abuses in the Church of England are likely to be published; if the Commission has made an Interim Report; and if a complete Report on this subject may be expected before the general election.

In answer to another Question put on February 21st† with regard to the same two subjects—namely, the date of the Report of the Commission and the date of the general election—I expressed my inability to forecast the particular time at which either of those events will fall; and that inability is still maintained.

Is there any time limit for the sittings of Royal Commissions?

No, Sir.

Is there any time limit for the Government?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when he will introduce the Scottish Churches Bill.

The Bill is in an advanced state of preparation, and I think I can promise to introduce it before Whitsuntide; but there is no chance of taking the Second Reading before Whitsuntide.

Will this Bill take precedence over the Unemployed Bill?

I cannot answer that Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a statement reported to have been made at a public meeting at Farnham by the Secretary of State for India, to the effect that the subject of preference to the Colonies has been reserved by the Government for consideration with the Colonies; that they will call the Colonies into council, and propose to confer with them next year on that very important subject: whether the Secretary of State for India has correctly stated the intention of the Government; and, if so, whether it is now proposed that the

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 780.

fiscal question shall be dealt with during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

I only read the hon. Gentleman's notice this morning, and I can find no such passage in the only report of the speech which I have been able to consult—namely, the report in The Times. [Cries of "It is in the Standard."] I have not seen that. But I see no necessary inconsistency between that statement and the often-declared policy of the Government—namely, that the question of fiscal policy shall not be dealt with by the present Parliament.

Then I am to understand that the Secretary for India did correctly state the intentions of the Government?

My right hon. friend made a statement which is not inconsistent, as far as I know, with the declared policy of the Government, which is that of not dealing with fiscal reform in the lifetime of the present Parliament. Nor do I see any inherent improbability in the hypothesis on which my right hon. friend may have proceeded—namely, that before the last day of 1906 the Party now in power shall have returned in possession of a large majority.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman adheres to the declaration made by Lord Lansdowne that the question of colonial preference will not be submitted to a Colonial Conference without first seeking the mandate of the country on the question of the conference.

I venture to say that it is not very convenient to discuss this interesting topic in this rather sporadic fashion at Question time; but I am not aware of any statement of Lord Lansdowne's which conflicts with opinions which I have previously expressed in respect to the position the Government takes up in regard to the fiscal question in this Parliament, and it is only in this Parliament that Members have a right to question me. They always tell me that I, at any rate, shall be one of the most insignificant members of the next Parliament.

Owing to the very important nature of the statement made by the Secretary of State for India and the Answer of the Prime Minister, I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the statement made by the Secretary of State for India at Farnham that it is proposed to confer with the Colonies next year on the subject of colonial preferences, notwithstanding the declarations of the First Lord of the Treasury and of Lord Lansdowne that the subject will not be dealt with by the Government during the lifetime of the present Parliament.

That is the view of the Secretary of State for India.

This cannot be brought within the plea of urgency. The speech of the Secretary for India was made some days ago, and therefore, so far as urgency is concerned, the hon. Member is too late. Then, again, as the Conference is only to be held next year, it can hardly be said that the matter is one of urgent importance.

On the question of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, surely Motions for adjournment have been allowed in reference to the fiscal question, although the Prime Minister has declared that it is not going to be dealt with during the present session of Parliament. May I submit also that it is a declaration made by the Minister responsible for India, which will be represented at this Conference, in respect to a perfectly new policy, departing from the policy of the Government in respect to something which may happen during the lifetime of the present Parliament? Therefore, I submit that it is a question of urgency. As to the second point, the fact that the speech was made some days ago, I may say that it was only yesterday afternoon that we saw it, for it did not appear in the ordinary reports—the report in The Times is very summarized—and we could not move before, because there was a Motion for the adjournment yesterday.

On the merits of the importance of the question of course I say nothing. I dare say the hon. Member has a very good case on that. But I really think it would be stretching the rule too far. After all, whether a decision is come to to-day or in a month's time, or before the end of the session, really seems to me immaterial.

We cannot raise it at all unless you accept this Motion.

It can hardly be said that instructions to be given in reference to the holding of a Conference next year is a matter of urgent importance.

May I be permitted, in justice to my right hon. friend, who is not here, to say that I have his distinct authority for saying that he has been misinterpreted. All that he said was subject to the view which I have constantly expressed.

Do we understand that he repudiates the report then?

I wish to ask a Question as to the order of business. The first order of the day—the appointment of the Committee on the Telephone Agreement—was announced last night, and considerable objection was taken to it. I hope it may be postponed. Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time indicate the general arrangements for next week?

As to the Telephone Agreement Committee I shall be glad to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman as far as possible, although time is rather of the essence of the matter. There is a general wish on both sides that the Committee shall report, and that before the end of the session the Government shall be in a position to find a day for the discussion of the Report. I shall be prepared to postpone the Motion for the appointment of the Committee until Monday next, and I hope that the debate will not assume undue proportions, but that the House will assist the Government to carry through the appointment of the Committee, which has been nominated in Reference to the general wish of the House. To-morrow Committee on the Agricultural Rates Bill will be resumed. On Thursday Votes 10 and 12 of the Navy Estimates will be put down first, and the remaining Votes afterwards, except Vote 8, which it is usual to leave till later in the season. On Monday the appointment of the Telephone Committee will come first, and then the Committee on the Budget Bill.

Can the Local Government Board Vote be taken at an early date, in order that questions relating to the driving of motors may be discussed.

May I also ask whether, when that Vote is taken, the First Lord will see that the whole time is not monopolised by the discussion on motors, in order that there may be some discussion of the Order relating to the feeding of school children.

Perhaps in the arrangement of Supply next week the Government will take into account the fact that Irish Supply has not been discussed at all this session. I hope the First Lord will in this matter consult the convenience of the Irish Members.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the rumoured seizure of a port in China by Germany?

I confess that this mixture of Questions is rather perplexing. As to the Local Government Board Vote, I think there are reasons for believing that the House would like a discussion at an early period, and, though I cannot give a pledge, I suggest that it may be convenient to allot Thursday week for this Vote. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asks whether the whole day is to be monopolised by the discussion of motors, and whether room cannot be found for a discussion—not the first discussion, though a discussion of a very important point—dealing with the feeding of school children. It does not rest with me to decide as to the order of topics on a Vote. The only control the Government have over the order of topics is that of moving the closure when they think a topic has been sufficiently discussed, but that is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with the order of business. Another hon. Member asks me a Question in regard to a rumour of some German action in China. I have heard the rumour, but I neither have nor can give any information on that subject. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Waterford, I have to ask him to communicate with my right hon. friend near me through the usual channels.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind before definitely fixing the Supply next week, as there are several matters connected with the government of Ireland which we are most anxious to discuss.

I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he will help the people who are endeavouring, during the summer months, to make some provision to deal with the unemployed during the winter? Will he press forward his Bill? That is the most important Question addressed to him to-day.

Notice must be given of it.

said he did not think it too much to suggest that the proposals embodied in the Finance Bill as placed before the House came as a welcome relief, not on account of their intrinsic merits, but rather on account of the fears which they had had as to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have proposed. They all knew that he was hankering after protection, but he had a hope that the right hon. Gentleman's experience at the Treasury would give him that education which his predecessors had enjoyed, and would cure him of the old-time, foolish, and exploded theory that it was possible to make people more comfortable by increasing the cost of living. If what they saw in the newspapers was correct, the fiscal proposals of the Government were now to be dropped in view of the meeting of June 2nd, and therefore they might take it that by that time the education of the right hon. Gentleman in a sound fiscal policy would be complete. They should first look very briefly at the burden of taxation to be imposed in the Finance Bill. That was a very serious problem, especially in view of the fact that when they considered the outcome of the last year's revenue they found that taking taxation on the basis of the previous year the produce displayed a diminution of £1,300,000, which proved that they had come to a stop in the productive power of their taxation on its present basis. He did not intend to go back to the last Liberal year of Administration in order to compare it with the financial position as it stood to-day, but he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to glance for a moment at the year 1899 under the present Administration—the last year before the outbreak of the war. The expenditure had increased during the previous four years by about £14,000,000, but he started from 1899, and he found that the taxation—and he was going to exclude Post Office and all untaxed revenue, and to deal only with taxation which was placed on the people—he found that the product of the taxed revenue in that year was £89,450,000. The taxation as proposed in the present year in this Bill would produce £119,000,000, an increase in that short period of £29,500,000, on the taxed revenue of the country. If they looked at the total revenue the comparison was even worse, because they were going to impose taxation for the current year amounting to £142,000,000, while the produce in 1899 was £108,000,000, or an increase of £34,000,000 sterling. They had the war taxes still—the taxes on tea, sugar, tobacco, beer and spirits, which were imposed on account of the war, and he thought they were entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when they were going to get remission of those war taxes. Now, in the present year he had given them a relief to the extent of 2d. per pound on tea, but that only bore a very small proportion to the extra taxes which were placed on the people for war purposes, and which were now being continued for ordinary expenditure. It was no doubt easier to preach economy than to practice it, but he did think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not really recognise the gavity of our present financial position—the disturbance of the money market, the prejudicial effect on trade, and the dislocation of commerce which had been caused by the increasing burden of taxation they now had to bear, and he thought the time had come when a protest should be made against excessive expenditure. No one denied in the abstract that it was excessive, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be the first to uphold economy. Not the least injurious effect of the South African War was the fact that it occasioned an utter disregard for economy. It gave full vent to the natural Departmental craving for expenditure, and while they were taught to think in millions the Departments thought that if they only spent in thousands they were making a real saving, whereas before they had only been spending in hundreds. The estimated expenditure for the present year was £142,000,000, a ghastly total, and if they added to that the local taxation expenditure and the expenditure on the naval and military works, they got a total for their annual Budget of £160,000,000. If that total was compared with the total in 1895, namely, £102,000,000, they got an increase of £58,000,000 a year. If they looked only at the ordinary expenditure there was an increase in that period of £48,000,000 a year. The expenditure in the present Budget was slightly less than that estimated for last year, and he supposed they ought to be thankful for small mercies, but he was convinced that the House would agree that the time had come when that excessive expenditure should be diminished, and he should like to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer take a bold stand for economy. He, however, hardly ever mentioned it; he rather seemed to think that his duty was to justify the existing expenditure of the Departments instead of putting the brake on, and making some reductions. He would concede this, that on last year's expenditure there was a reduction of nearly £1,000,000 sterling. That was to the good. If they looked at the expenditure of the current year they found that on the Navy Estimates they had a reduction of £3,500,000, and considering that this was Nelson's year, he thought that it showed considerable courage on the part of the Department to make that reduction—it showed some return to sanity. He would like to point out that in the year which he had chosen for comparison, namely, 1899, the year before the war, the Navy Estimates were £24,000,000. This year, however, they were £33,250,000, even giving effect to the reduction which had been made. If they turned to the Army they found an increase in Army expenditure of £1,000,000 over last year's Estimates. He thought that in these times of peace that was entirely indefensible. They had a statement from the Prime Minister on the preceding Thursday showing that in the view of the Committee of Defence there was no risk of invasion, and surely in justice they were entitled to believe that the Army expenditure ought to decrease. But again, if they took the same year for comparison they found that in 1899 the military expenditure was £20,000,000, whereas they were budgeting this year for an expenditure of £30,000,000, or an increase of £10,000,000 on the Army. This was in addition to an increase of £9,000,000 on the Navy, and if they put the Army and Navy expenditure together for 1899 they got a total of £44,000,000, whereas the total for the present year was £63,000,000. That was entirely exclusive of the expenditure on naval and military works. Really, the ways of the Government were past finding out. They had the statement of the Prime Minister——

The total includes annuities, whereas you said that it was irrespective of the expenditure on works.

said that it was irrespective of the loan expenditure on naval and military works, a point with which he proposed to deal later on. It was, of course, inclusive of the sum budgeted this year as annual contribution in respect of naval and military works. They had three Army schemes. They had that of the Committee of Defence; they had that of the Army Council; and they had, in the third place, that of the Secretary for War, who evidently differed from both the others. If they looked at the military position at the present time any fair-minded man would say there ought to be a large diminution in our Army expenditure. No doubt there was a great deal of extra expenditure occasioned by the war, but he would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a precedent which he hoped he would follow. The same thing happened after the Crimean War. When Mr. Gladstone became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1859 the Army and Navy expenditure amounted to £26,000,000, and in the intervening period between 1859 and 1866 it rose to £28,000,000. Mr. Gladstone set himself to reduce expenditure largely occasioned on account of the war, and the consequence was that when he quitted the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1866 he had brought back the naval and military expenditure to what it was in 1857. That was what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to put before himself to-day; he ought to attempt to bring back the naval and military expenditure to the point, not at which it stood when the present Government took office, but at which it was in the year before the war—in 1899. He had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would follow Mr. Gladstone and say that economy was the first and greatest article in his financial creed. But that did not sum up all the financial shortcomings of the present Government. They borrowed too largely for war expenditure, and as a consequence we had added to the National Debt a sum of £160,000,000. Might he point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what had been done previously by this country in relation to expenditure of the same kind? Take what was done during the Crimean War. In 1854, before that war broke out, the National Debt amounted to £802,000,000. By 1857, on account of the war expenditure, it had gone up to £837,000,000, an increase of £35,000,000. The country set itself to get rid of that debt at the earliest possible opportunity, and the result was that within ten years—by 1867—they had wiped off a sum equivalent to what was spent on the Crimean War, and which had been added to the Debt. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to wipe out in ten years or even in twenty years, the addition which had been made to the National Debt on account of the South African War? He had a still more serious charge to make against the present financial arrangements, a charge altogether apart from expenditure on the war. For the first time, he believed in the history of this country, the National Debt had been added to in times of peace. He did not know whether the House really realised the true significance of that. Did they realise that in a year of peace the National Debt had been added to? Last year we increased our national indebtedness by £2,250,000. That was unprecedented, unjustifiable, and indefensible, and it really brought them to the German method of finance, whereby they were borrowing for ordinary current expenditure. To put it in another manner, the Government was not paying its way. Now the gross liabilities on March 31st last amounted to £796,700,000 sterling, a sum almost equivalent to the National Debt away back in 1854. That was a comparison which should cause them to pause. He noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech gave no comparison between the gross debt as at March 31st, 1904, and debt as at March 31st, 1905. He gave a direct comparison in regard to the Funded Debt which had been reduced, but for the first time he did not place before the House in parallel columns the gross liabilities of the State in 1904 and 1905. The consequence was that no one reading the Budget speech, or listening to it, could have realised that in that year the National Debt had been increased by the sum he had mentioned. No doubt he spoke of the Sinking Fund, but then most people were rather disinclined to consider the question of the Sinking Fund, and they appeared to think that there was some mystery about it. He did not know that there was any mystery at all about it. It was merely an annual contribution to wipe off debt, and if the Debt, instead of being reduced, was increased, anyone would see that the Sinking Fund was inoperative, and, therefore, that something was wrong. It was clear that there was no adequate provision for the reduction of the Debt. The man in the street could understand that; it did not require a financier to point out that if there was no reduction being made the Sinking Fund was insufficient. Now the Sinking Fund as regarded the Funded Debt was meant to reduce the Debt by about £7,500,000 a year. From 1893 to 1898 they did reduce their gross liabilities year by year by about £7,000,000 sterling, notwithstanding the capital expenditure on naval and military works. Now they were borrowing more than they were paying off and the naval and military works were mainly responsible for that. Might he point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they had had really no opportunity before the Budget of discussing the amount that these works would cost during the coming financial year? In regard to the other estimates of expenditure they were discussed before the close of the preceding financial year, but the Naval and Military Works Bills were not, and even the one for the current year had not yet been produced. All that, he thought, tended to extravagance, because it really obscured the issue from the House. They had gone on spending year after year without realising how the expenditure on account of the naval and military works had increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in reply to some observations he had made, said they had a sinking fund carried on the Votes which he described as abnormally high. But he would like just to draw the attention of the House to the figures to show how vain the boast was. He was taking the figures for the last seven years. In 1899 the outstanding debt on account of naval and military works was £7,000,000; two years later, in 1901, it was £14,000,000. In 1902 it was £20,000,000; in 1903, £27,500,000; in 1904, nearly £32,000,000; and in 1905, £41,500,000, while the estimated expenditure for the current financial year brought it up to £47,500,000. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about an abnormally high sinking fund he begged him to remember that while he was laying aside under this head of expenditure a sum of £1,500,000 a year he had been borrowing since the first date at the rate of over £8,000,000 a year. How long would that increase of £7,000,000 go on? In his opinion this expenditure ought to be added to the ordinary taxation of the year. It was not capital expenditure in the real sense. It was bad finance to treat it as such, and he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could he really defend it? Now, in the present Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increase the Sinking Fund contribution by £1,000,000 a year, and here let him say that he thought it was very unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hit upon the lottery method of dealing with these Exchequer bonds. The lottery system was entirely foreign to our finance; there had been no advantage reaped from it. The interest to be paid was very high, and he begged to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would have been better if he had simply added the £1,000,000 a year to the ordinary Sinking Fund, and he would then have given to any future Chancellor of the Exchequer a free hand in dealing with it. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expected to be in his place next year, but if he were his criticism as to a large Debt conversion scheme would not apply. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have dealt this year with the floating debt, which amounted to £71,633,000, according to the National Debt Returns issued yesterday morning. He would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he did not propose to deal in a comprehensive way with this floating debt. He had before pointed out a way in which he might have dealt with it by means of terminable annuities. Of course, he quite realised that the right hon. Gentleman could not have dealt with the floating debt without facing up to the question of the Transvaal contribution. That was an essential part of any comprehensive scheme to deal with the Unfunded Debt. Although £30,000,000 seemed to be a large sum to ask from the Transvaal, this country was laying aside for the payment of principal and interest for the reduction of debt over £30,000,000 per annum. He would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider that in 1885—twenty years ago—we laid aside a sum of £29,649,784 when the National Debt was less by £60,000,000 than it was to-day, and when there was no Naval and Military Works expenditure. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer frankly tell the House, first of all, what sum he intended to spend this year on Naval and Military Works; and secondly, what was the amount of all the Sinking Fund which was to go during the current year to redeem the Debt? There was an estimate on the first head of £8,000,000, and on the second head of £10,100,000. Was that so?

Yes.

That meant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to reduce the National Debt by £2,000,000, so that there would only be an effective Sinking Fund of £2,000,000 to go to reduce the gross liabilities of the State, instead of £7,000,000 a year which we were paying off before 1899. He thought he had shown that whether they consider the burdens on the people—the ordinary expenditure, the capital expenditure, or the state of the National Debt, they had to face a grave financial position. He hoped that they were at the end of this period of lavish expenditure, unprecedented borrowing, and no adequate provision for the extinction of debt. It was a position which required great courage and ability to deal with. This Finance Bill, although it avoided any gross defiance of the principles of sound finance unhappily experienced in the past, did not meet the requirements of the very grave financial position in which the nation found itself after ten long weary years of incompetence and gross extravagance under the present Government.

said that undoubtedly this matter of the Debt could not be too often brought before the House of Commons and the nation. The Debt had increased, was increasing, and was not going to be diminished. The Debt would be greater next year than it was now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deny that. If the right hon. Gentleman could show that he was wrong in that assertion, he should welcome the demonstration. He thought he could prove to the House that not only was the Debt greater this year than last, but that it would be greater, as a whole, next year than this. Exception must be taken to the Treasury terminology. The Treasury treated one part alone of the Debt as Funded Debt, but, in fact, all debt that was not Funded Debt was Unfunded Debt. Instead of putting all these debts together and calling the total Unfunded Debt, the Treasury made a selection from them, called that Unfunded Debt, and set up a capital account which did not exist. As showing that it did not exist the Treasury put down the assets of the British Empire at £40,000,000—less than one-third of the total annual revenue. He earnestly begged the attention of the House to some very simple figures. A Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought in his Budget, was mainly occupied in omitting from his Budget statement large sums that ought to be in it. When he talked of the Debt he talked of deadweight debt. All debt was dead-weight debt, even if it had a sinking fund attached to it. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Funded Debt and told the House it was being reduced. But the right hon. Gentleman left out of account a far more important, far more obnoxious debt which was not funded, regularised, or duly provided with its own sinking fund as a permanent charge—and which was consequently the most dangerous form of debt—the unfunded debt of various kinds. The form of debt which he would first desire to see decreased was not the Funded, but the Unfunded Debt; but the contrary was the case. The Funded Debt was decreased by £2,000,000, on which interest at the rate of 2¾ per cent. was paid, while the other debts on which a higher rate of interest was paid were being increased. The Funded Debt had been decreased by £2,000,000; that part of the Unfunded Debt which the Treasury chose to call Unfunded Debt by £2,000,000, and the terminable annuity liability had been reduced by £3,600,000, or a total reduction of £7,600,000 this year. But what was called capital liability debt, which he held was an unfunded debt, and the most serious form of it—incurred for works—had been increased by £9,800,000. So that although the former kinds of debt had been decreased by £7,600,000, the nett result for the year was that our total absolute debt had not been decreased, but had been increased by £2,200,000. The final result was that the total absolute debt of the country was £796,700,000 at the end of the year. Now, he had spoken of the capital liability debt incurred for works as being the most important and dangerous part of the whole debt; and it was so in this respect. It was the most dangerous because the Government could, within large limits, add to it at its will, and when it pleased. There were still £14,500,000 of that debt, which the Government had power to borrow, still unborrowed. And consequently without any assent of the House, without the knowledge of the House, the Government could borrow up to £14,500,000 in addition to this most obnoxious form of debt used for works. That was a very serious state of things. The House had, no doubt, given the Government authority to do this very dangerous thing, but he earnestly hoped that these discussions would have the effect—he believed that they had had already some effect—of making the Government far more wary in exercising their borrowing powers than they had been hitherto. There was another abuse connected with capital liability debt. The Government last year took £2,000,000 from the Treasury balances and applied that sum to the reduction of debt; but they borrowed £2,830,000 more than they required to issue for the works for which it was borrowed. There was really no necessity for borrowing that extra sum. The right hon. Gentleman would find in his own financial statement, page 5, that there was borrowed to meet capital expenditure £10,912,000, and that there was issued to meet capital expenditure £8,069,000. The difference was £2,843,000, which the Government borrowed for the purpose of issuing for these works, but did not issue.

I would point out that the hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice the fact that we had temporarily drawn on the Exchequer balances to the extent of £2,000,000 in the previous year on account of these works, and therefore we had to borrow in 1904–5 the £2,000,000 to repay the amount drawn from the Exchequer balances. The amount of money we over-borrowed last year was somewhat short of £1,000,000 of the amount required, which was a miscalculation on the part of the Department.

said that the right hon. Gentleman explained the discrepancy by explaining that there was not one error, but two. The Government under-borrowed the previous year and over-borrowed this year to make up the deficiency, and even then there was at least £2,830,000 which went to swell the Treasury balances. There was a gravely dangerous power of borrowing under these Capital Expenditure Acts. Let the House observe that the Treasury balances were in this way repleted by nearly £3,000,000 which really did not belong to them.

This is a matter which I explained in my statement. It was taken out of the Treasury balances the year before last. It was taken from the Treasury balances for the purpose of these capital accounts. The National Debt Commissioners were unable to supply this amount, and the first thing that had to be done when we had new borrowing powers, or when fresh money came into the hands of the Debt Commissioners, was to relieve ourselves from what we had paid. The hon. Member will find the whole transaction set out in my Budget speech.

said he thought the National Debt account suggested, if it did not actually state it, that this £2,000,000 was taken from the Treasury balances this year. But, however that might be, it was an undoubted fact that the Government had this dangerous power of borrowing, and although they might exercise it with great skill and prudence, it was perfectly possible for them to borrow either less money or more than they required, and when they borrowed more it went to swell the balances, and this would make them look greater than they really were at the moment. He had shown that the absolute debt at this moment was £2,200,000 more than it amounted to last year, but the House must not forget that there were other very serious liabilities this year. There were the guaranteed loans of £152,700,000, though, of course, the liability for those was not to the same extent or of the same completeness as that for the £796,000,000. Still, there was the liability, and they would perhaps never know how much of that they would have to bear. The guaranteed loans, he might point out, included this year another £10,000,000 for Irish land purchase. In addition to the guaranteed loans there were the contingent liabilities, including that to the Post Office Savings Bank. The particulars of the contingent liabilities were not set forth this year, but they could not amount to less than they did last year, which was £19,000,000. So that if they added the contingent liabilities to the guaranteed loans they had a total of £171,700,000 to add to the £796,000,000. If to those two added together was added £500,000 the House would see the total liabilities of the State amounted to no less than £968,200,000, although he admitted that all the liabilities were not of the same quality, some being more and others less absolute. There was, in addition to those liabilities, the awful local debt of near £500,000,000, which was also a liability of the subjects of the State, but which he did not add to the other because it had yet another quality. How had the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that? He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had shown considerable courage, but he had not dealt adequately with the matter. Let the House take what were called the lottery bonds. He asserted on a previous occasion that in effect by the issue of these lottery bonds the existing Unfunded Debt was extended for five years to the extent of £5,000,000. Section 7 of the Act showed that that was so. If the right hon. Gentleman could explain Section 7 taken in conjunction with the Supplementary War Loans Act of 1900 in another way he would be glad to hear the explanation, but otherwise it was impossible to read Section 7 without coming to the conclusion at which he had arrived, that in respect to £5,000,000 the right hon. Gentleman had assented to an extension of five years longer than it would have otherwise taken to extinguish. He did not wish to raise again the ghost of the £30,000,000 war contribution, except to say that unless we got the £30,000,000 from the Transvaal he did not know how we were to provide for the repayment of the war loan, when its repayment became due. He did not envy the right hon. Gentleman who might be in office when that time came. He contended that they were entitled to recover that £30,000,000 at the hands of the Government; it was promised by a former Secretary for the Colonies, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, as an inducement to the House to guarantee the loan of £35,000,000. It was stated to be a payment in commutation of a sum of £100,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman thought was due, and to the extent of £10,000,000 was to be underwritten by competent persons in the Transvaal. As to the conditions, which were three, they had all been fulfilled. There was a bargain. We were to take £30,000,000 instead of £100,000,000, or at least £70,000,000, and that £30,000,000 was all to be paid in three years. Two and a - half years had gone by and we had not received a penny of that sum. So complete a bargain had never been presented to this House as that presented by the late Colonial Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking on behalf of the Government, under which the House guaranteed the loan of £35,000,000, and if that obligation was now to be thrown to the winds and explained away the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had to pay off the war loan would be put in a desperate position, while the greatest reproach would rest on the Government for the abandonment of that engagement. It was a most solemn engagement; none of the conditions had been violated; it was a freely accepted burden by the gentlemen who undertook the obligation to underwrite it, and a very serious damage would be done not only to the Government itself but to the cause of public faith in England if it were now abandoned. It did not behove the House to condemn the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in the production of this Bill. He had risen more to emphasise that great concern he felt at the increased and still increasing debt of this country, and the insufficient means taken to provide funds to wipe it off.

said he desired to emphasise what had been already said on both sides of the House in reference to the reduction of debt. It was a question of the utmost importance to the country, and it was one upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome the expression of the views of the House in favour of the more rapid reduction of debt. Ten years ago the net reduction of the debt was £7,000,000 a year. Since then we had had a war which cost us £260,000,000, and last year there was not only no reduction of debt, but an increase in the National Debt of £2,000,000. During the last six years the total debt of the country had increased by £160,000,000, and we had not up to the present moment reduced the war debt by a single penny. This was not the only instance in modern times of the National Debt being added to in time of peace. At the present time, in the fourth year of peace, we had no less than £23,000,000 of additional taxation, and the amount the right hon. Gentleman had promised by way of the utmost reduction would only be some £2,000,000, though there was all this enormous amount of additional taxation. This increase of taxation was attributed to what was called capital expenditure, the amount of which in naval and military works and things of that sort was really greater than really appeared on the face of the Financial Statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech had referred to it as being about £40,000,000, but it was in reality much larger, because during the period from 1894 to 1898 there was each year a large sinking fund which used to go to the reduction of debt which had now been utilised for this purpose, in addition to which through the Sinking Fund something like £5,000,000 had been paid for capital expenditure. This expenditure was really £57,000,000; that was to say, one-third more than appeared in the accounts. In two years the country had borrowed £60,000,000 for the purpose of capital expenditure, which was a matter to which he thought consideration should be given. The right hon. Gentleman, when dealing with debt, put it into two categories; one he called dead-weight debt and the other capital expenditure, against which he held assets in ships and works. But he (Mr. Buxton) denied that these naval and military works could in any sense of the word be regarded as assets. Assets were things which could be valued and at a favourable time sold out and the borrowed money repaid in that way. That was not the case here, and therefore the capital expenditure was as much a dead-weight debt on the country as the other expenditure which the right hon. Gentleman placed in that category. One of the worst tendencies of this borrowing on the one hand and paying off on the other and thus increasing the capital expenditure was that it resulted in an increase of the National Debt. As he understood, the Unfunded Debt had increased in the last six years by no less than £100,000,000, but during the same period the Funded Debt had been diminished by £40,000,000. Under these circumstances he asked, Would it not be better to apply the whole of the Sinking Fund to the purposes of diminishing not the Funded Debt but the Unfunded Debt, which at the present moment was far too large? The right hon. Gentleman had declared his strong desire to diminish the amount of capital expenditure, under certain conditions. That was necessary, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would admit that a considerable amount of money borrowed for these purposes would be much more usefully met out of the expenditure of the year. He had not much hope at the moment that the right hon. Gentleman, unless he took very strong action, would be able to reduce that expenditure on the naval and military programme to any extent. The expenditure, he supposed, must take its course, but they would warmly support the right hon. Gentleman in any proposals he made to reduce that expenditure and to bring it, as it ought to be brought, into the ordinary Budget of the year, instead of its being had by means of Supplemental Estimates. Having said so much with regard to the debt itself, he would now say a few words as to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman for the reduction of the debt. The amount to be applied to the Sinking Fund this year was £10,000,000, but the real significance of that was not the amount to be utilised in one year for that purpose, but the specific amount the right hon. Gentleman intended to apply to it out of the taxation of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer surely admitted that the Unfunded Debt was too great, and it would, therefore, seem to be better policy to apply the money solely to the reduction of that debt, and not to the purchase of Consols in the market. He did not share the Chancellor of the Exchequer's sanguine hopes that he would be able to reduce capital expenditure. While he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having added £1,000,000 to the Sinking Fund, he did not think he could have done anything else, looking at the position of the Debt and the Sinking Fund. The figures of national expenditure were certainly very disheartening to the economists in the House, whose numbers, he was afraid, were few; and still more disheartening was the expenditure on certain branches in regard to which they could not feel that the nation got value for its money. For a good deal of the expenditure the country did not get full value. This was particularly the case in regard to education and the Army. In connection with the Army there had been brought forward several schemes, each extremely costly, and the last of which, while showing no diminution in expenditure, had practically disorganised the Regulars, disheartened the Militia, and disgusted the Volunteers. This was a very unfortunate result for any Army scheme to have upon a service founded not upon conscription but upon popular favour and support. One matter upon which the Government might be congratulated was the fact that at last there was some hope of the cessation of expenditure in the wilds of Somaliland. The apparent result of a wise arrangement made by the Italians with the Mullah was that that so-called mad person had been given a large slice of territory, turned into a Potentate, and granted a port. He did not know that this House had ever gone so far as to suggest that the Mullah should be given territory and a port, but they had, at any rate, always contended that terms should be come to and a check put upon these costly and bloody expeditions into Africa. His chief desire in speaking, however, was to emphasise what he regarded as two really serious matters in connection with our national finance at the present moment. The first was the fact that we were not reducing the debt anything like so rapidly as we ought to do, and the other was that our annual expenditure was of such a type and taxation was so heavy that it could not fail very seriously to affect the consuming power and the comforts of the working classes, and also to injure and jeopardise our commercial position in competition with other nations.

said that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill was usually not so much a discussion of the contents of the Bill itself as a part of a general discussion of the financial position of the country. Not unnaturally a considerable amount of attention to-day had been directed to the question of taxation, and so far as he could gather, the general feeling seemed to be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted rightly, so far as he had gone, but that it was desirable that he should go still further in the direction he had taken. In his Budget speech his right hon. friend clearly and distinctly intimated that he would discourage the idea of adding to our Rational Debt by naval, military, or public works, and the House might rest assured that any assistance they could give in that direction would be welcomed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as the question of debt was concerned it would probably be advisable that he should leave many of the technical and complicated points to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with later on, but he might be permitted to deal with certain matters which came more immediately under his own personal observation. So far as the Army and Navy were concerned, the important speech of the Prime Minister on Thursday last had doubtless had the effect of bringing more clearly before the country what our obligations were, and if while bearing those obligations in mind it were found possible to reduce the expenditure on the Army and Navy, it would be a result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome with acclamation. He would remind the House, however, that when such reductions were made they frequently caused considerable inconvenience, and in some cases distress. That being so, he hoped that when the reductions took place and the inevitable dislocation followed—which the Departments concerned would endeavour to make as little onerous as possible—Members would assist by not raising questions concerning this or that district, or this or that particular class of Government servants. In the debate of a year ago he was accused of having lectured the House. It was said that every Financial Secretary had lectured the House and always would do so. Possibly his speech was somewhat open to that charge, but he certainly had no intention of lecturing the House, and it was not his wish to do so to-day. At the same time, with all due respect, he would venture to call attention to two occurrences in the present session. Possibly of all the Estimates, Class I. was the section most capable of being considered in its minutest details. There were many matters dealt with in that class to which it would have been the wish of the House to devote careful and minute inquiry. But the Government were pressed to put down the House of Commons Vote first. Two hours of the afternoon were occupied in a discussion mainly concerned with the comforts and conveniences of Members, and if it had not been for the timely intervention of one of the Members for Islington the whole of the afternoon might have been devoted to that topic. He was not at all sure that he ought not to congratulate the noble Lord who was in charge of the Vote upon the fact that the net result of the debate was a promise to look into the question of telephonic communication between the House of Commons and Westminster Hospital, and into the advisability of providing a swing door in some portion of the House. Speaking as the representative of the Treasury, he thought they got off very cheaply on that occasion. The second debate to which he wished to refer took place on Wednesday last, when he was absolutely alone in endeavouring to press upon the House that what they were doing might create a fresh charge upon the Exchequer. A fair case for inquiry was made out by hon. Members from Ireland in reference to art accommodation in Dublin, but he was certainly surprised at the somewhat vigorous assistance—whether altogether in favour of art or in anticipation of favours to come be could not say—rendered to Irish representatives by hon. Members for Scotch constituencies, and he looked in vain for support from those quarters in which were generally found certain critics of the national expenditure. Whatever the result of the promised inquiry might be, he hoped Irish and Scottish representatives would not be altogether unmindful of the possible dangers arising from extra expenditure. He wished to put before the House some figures connected with expenditure, and although they would probably fail to satisfy the House, he hoped they might do some good. He would go back ten years, not only because it was convenient, but because it also coincided with that moment which possibly hon. Gentlemen opposite regarded as the inauguration of everything that was bad in expenditure and administration. Omitting the Army and Navy and comparing the total Estimates of the Budget Services for 1895–6 with the Estimates presented this year, there had been an increase during that period of £21,500,000. That increase was made up roughly as follows:—Service of the Debt, £3,000,000; Civil Services, £9,000,000; Postal and Revenue Services, £6,000,000; and Local Taxation Relief, £3,500,000. He would not go at any great length into the details of the figures he had referred to. There were, however, two or three items of interest. For instance, there was an increase on works and buildings of £850,000, and of this total £235,000 was in respect of Revenue Buildings and £210,000 for rates. He thought it only right to point out to the House that much of the increased expenditure for the Revenue Services included the Postal and Telegraph Services, and much of that had been incurred for the convenience of the public. They nevertheless continued to derive considerable income from the Postal Services as a whole. During the last two or three years the expenditure upon public buildings had shown a considerable rise. The reason for this was that in this respect much economy was practised during the war, and it was felt most undesirable that they should continue to diminish this expenditure after the war was over. Obviously they should endeavour to make up those arrears as much as possible, and consequently they had for the last two or three years had to place on the Estimates heavier sums for this purpose. He scarcely liked to venture to hold out any hopes of economy, but he believed that his right hon. friend the Postmaster-General would be able, when the arrears had been caught up, to discontinue this heavy expenditure, or at any rate would not continue it at such a rate. There was another item which had shown an alarming increase during the last ten years, and that was in regard to the rates paid upon Government property, which showed an increase of £210,000. A Question had been asked which implied that there was a chance of still further demands being placed upon the Imperial Exchequer in this respect, but he would advise the House not to make any departure from their present system. There had been an increase in Class II. of the Estimates of £600,000; it was perfectly well known and admitted that with the continual growth of population they must expect to see the cost of civil administration increased. He was afraid it was not possible to deny that that would always be the case, but the greater part of this increase was due to carrying out those obligations which had been placed upon the various Departments of the State by the action of the House. He did not complain of this, and he had no right to complain. Great improvement had been made in regard to the supervision of dangerous occupations under the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, and the Home Office, but they had had to appoint a number of additional inspectors to deal with very important matters concerning the lives of the people, conditions of labour, and the actual conditions of employment of almost every class of the community. If there was that continuous and continual desire expressed on the floor of the House and constant pressure put upon the heads of Departments that still more should be done in those directions, then it was almost impossible to venture to hope for any reduction in expenditure upon those heads. He did not complain of the action of the House in those matters, because he believed that such expenditure was justified; but when they insisted that there should be more inspection, and that more protection should be given in those various directions, then they were not justified in complaining when they had to pay for those services. With regard to the total increase in the cost of the Civil Services, during the ten years under review more than two-thirds of the total increase was due to education. The expenditure upon Class IV. during the year 1895–6 was £10,250,000. In the year 1905–6 this expenditure had been estimated at over £16,250,000, and of the whole of that increase the Education Vote was responsible for £5,963,000, or practically the whole of the increase. He was aware that he was now raising questions which had been bitterly fought out upon the floor of this House, but he had never yet heard that there was any likelihood of suggestions being made to diminish the contribution which they were now making towards education. The tendency was rather in the direction that the State should bear still further expenditure in regard to education. He did not know whether the House fully realised the burden which education was now placing upon the taxpayers of this country, but at the present moment, as he had already stated, the direct tendency was in the direction of attempting to place a still bigger share of the burden of education upon the Imperial Exchequer rather than upon the local authorities. He wished to remind the House that in consequence of the generally expressed feeling both inside and outside of the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the grants to the University colleges to £100,000. That was a Vote which would probably come up for discussion, for there were several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen anxious to have that Vote put down for consideration, as they desired to discuss it on broad principles. He thought it would perhaps be a source of satisfaction to the House if he stated that he thought they were beginning to see signs of the various protectorates demanding less assistance from the Imperial Exchequer than they had in the past, and he hoped that the day was not very far distant when they would be self-supporting. In the statement he had made he had not taken into account the benefits which those Protectorates abroad might confer upon British trade and commerce as a whole; the great interest which had lately been developed in Lancashire with reference to certain of those protectorates was well known and admitted by all, and although they had in times past incurred very heavy expenditure in many of these directions, he thought they were now able to show some justification for their policy in that respect. Referring to the Revenue Departments, he said that the cost of the Customs and the Inland Revenue had increased in ten years by £468,000, but in the meantime the revenue had increased by more than £36,000,000. He thought, therefore, he was justified in saying that the additional cost was most minute. He knew that in many quarters of the House, and also outside, there had been a strong feeling that the conditions in the Departments of Customs and Inland Revenue were not fair and that they required consideration. He knew how much depended on the smooth working of those Departments in connection with the collection of the very large amounts which passed through their hands. Any representations made to him would, of course, receive at his hand, as they had always received at the hands of his predecessors, the most careful and the most thorough investigation. He wished with all respect to place before the House a consideration which he thought they were sometimes inclined to overlook. The country was fortunate in these services in possessing men who desired to do their work, and who did it admirably. At the same time the matter must be regarded as one of business, and the remuneration paid to the staff must be regarded not so much in respect of what was due to the individuals themselves, but as to what ought properly to be paid for the work which had to be done. He should not like to state absolutely, but he could not help feeling that in certain of the Departments the conditions which had hitherto prevailed had been the means of attracting to those services individuals who possibly in many respects were rather too good for the work which they had to do. While they were fortunate in having the services of those men, he thought he could at the same time without fear of contradiction lay down as a principle that in that House they must have the scale of remuneration on the actual class of the work that had to be done. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen who had interested and were interesting themselves in these matters that they should bear this consideration in view. No doubt there would be further opportunities during the session for the discussion of these matters more in detail. He should like to take this opportunity of thanking many hon. Members for their courtesy in bringing these matters before him without raising them in a controversial way in the House. He thought these matters were far better settled outside the House. The only other matter to which he wished to call attention was the Post Office. In the period of review the Post Office Votes had increased by £5,787,000, while the postal and telegraph revenue had increased by £6,330,000. There was thus still a net slight additional revenue derived from the Post Office. But there again the expenditure had been considerably increased by concessions which had recently been made to Post Office employees and which he understood were still likely to be the subject of further consideration when brought before the House. In the course of the past ten years the larger portion of the increase of £21,000,000 in the Civil Service expenditure had been due to the Postal and Telegraph Services, which had at the same time been the means of increasing the revenue of the country by a still larger proportion. That increased expenditure had been incurred to carry out the policy which had been adopted by the House. There were two considerations which they ought to bear in mind in judging whether this expenditure was necessary or not. It was very easy to look at totals and make comparisons with the figures of five, ten, or twenty years ago, and then say that the expenditure had gone up, but the two questions which he should ask were, first: Is the country able and willing to bear the burden? and, second: Are we getting value for our money? On hardly any occasion had the debates in the House tended to show that the country had been unable to bear the burden, or that the people had been unwilling to make the sacrifices they had been called upon to make. He did not suppose the present House of Commons would determine, but if any future House of Commons should determine that economy was the sole object of its existence, and should be content with what might be called the barest necessities of government, it would be perfectly possible and easy for any Cabinet or Chancellor of the Exchequer to make very serious reductions in expenditure. Nothing was easier than by a stroke of the pen to take off grants of one kind and another. He had seen opportunities of making very drastic and considerable reductions in the amounts given to societies which came under the head of scientific investigation. He was bound to say that at the present moment there was nothing filled the Treasury with greater alarm than the approach of men of science and men of art. If necessary very serious and far-reaching reductions, almost with the stroke of the pen, could be made, but he should be very much surprised if for a long time to come the House of Commons were to adopt a policy of that nature. If the Government attempted to do so he was bound to say that he should not be envious of those who were responsible for such a policy. He thought he could with justification claim that although the expenditure was heavy—he did not deny that the expenditure was heavy—there was nothing to prove that the country was not able to bear the burden, or that we were not getting value for our money.

congratulated the hon. Gentleman on the review he had given of certain branches of expenditure which might otherwise have been overlooked. Having had some little experience in meeting the heads of the Customs during the past few years he could heartily second the remarks of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the excellent services rendered by them. He did not think the House really appreciated the great efforts made at the Custom House, and also by the Inland Revenue Department to make the duties of these offices work smoothly with the traders of the country, who were in a great measure dependent on the facilities they gave. The testimony borne by the hon. Gentleman to the excellent manner in which their duties were discharged were fully deserved. The hon. Gentleman had told those who had been grumbling at the national expenditure that so far as the Civil Service was concerned there had only been an increase in ten years of £21,500,000. Of that sum £9,000,000 might be traced to questions over which the Revenue Departments had no control whatever, and £3,000,000 were for the service of the Debt. The Debt had been increased by the Imperial statesmen who had adopted such a high-flying policy in recent years. The £6,000,000 at the Post Office was really not an increase of expenditure at all. It had proved to be profitable outlay. If they took off these £9,000,000 they found that there had only been an increase of about £12,000,000 on the Civil Service expenditure. Of the £12,000,000 there might be traced to education £6,000,000. The hon. Gentleman had said that no one had dared to object to the expenditure on education. He supposed the hon. Gentleman did not take notice of the remarks which a humble individual like himself made from time to time. He did not think there was anything sacred in the expenditure on education. There was no connection between a good and effective system of education and the huge expenditure which had been made upon education in the extravagant period they were passing through. The expenditure on education required to be surveyed as closely as any other branch of expenditure. There were six Education Acts and it was not at all certain that our system of national education was improved according to the increased expenditure upon it. The hon. Member opposite had said that the nation was quite satisfied with the present condition of affairs, but that if expenditure was to be reduced that might be done by striking off some of the grants to Universities. That would not be at all easy to do without causing great inconvenience. It was when the grants were being given that care should be exercised, because the cruelty arose from setting up expenditure in the first instance which the country really did not want. He quite agreed with reducing expenditure which would cause as little suffering as possible. That might be accomplished not by reducing the Government establishments but by reducing the amount of work done in outside yards. The Government itself was to a large extent responsible for the men whom it employed, and there should not be the amount of fluctuation of employment that had sometimes been the case and which had caused much suffering. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the country was satisfied that for this expenditure good value was got for the money, and had answered that the country was satisfied. He had been all over the country at elections, and found the greatest dissatisfaction with the current extravagant expenditure; and he ventured to say that no Government ever made a greater mistake than in imagining the country was satisfied. The country was thoroughly dissatisfied, and was resolved on the reduction of expenditure. Then, as to the country getting value for its money, look at the Return just issued, which showed that £248,000 worth of stores were destroyed in South Africa, and at all the revelations made connected with the war. Again, millions had been wasted on the fortifications of London. The Prime Minister himself had admitted that the other day; and his only excuse was that men were human, and liable to err. What value were we getting for the stones in the forts which were rotting on the Surrey Hills? As to the extraordinary growth of the public debt, he joined with those who protested against the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn between the various kinds of debt. What was the use of speaking of dead-weight debt, and unfunded debt and capital liability debt? All these accounts were kept open to bamboozle the House and puzzle the country. If hon. Members would only look at the black figures in the Annual Return of debt there would be much less confusion. He was glad that there had been no attempt to introduce a Party bias into this debate so far, unless it might have been by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who gave credit to the Liberals for what they had done to reduce the national indebtedness in former times. The Return showed that the total amount of the Unfunded Debt when the Liberals were in power was £10,000,000, while to-day it was £72,000,000. That was what had been done by a Tory Government in ten years. The capital liability debt was only £4,000,000 ten years ago; now it amounted to £42,000,000. That was a bad record for those responsible for the finances of the country in the meantime. For the past six years the Debt had been steadily increasing with the exception of last year, when there was a reduction of £3,000,000; but that was accounted for by the money received from the Transvaal. No attempt had been made to see that the country paid its way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a statement in which there was an adumbration as to what would take place next year. He believed that both this year and next the indebtedness of the nation would continue to rise. That was a most serious condition of affaire which no Government had ever neglected until the present; and unless the Government grappled with the difficulties of finance they ought to make way for another which would do so. Of course this was a matter which reflected more on previous Chancellors of the Exchequer than the hon. Gentleman now on the Treasury Bench. He wished to call attention to the way in which the growth of the Debt had been excused in debate in recent years. He held in his hand the last three Budget speeches made by the respective Chancellors of the Exchequer. The first was by the right hon. Member for Croydon. In dealing with the Debt the right hon. Gentleman made out a splendid case for reduction of debt and for economy of expenditure. He said that the Sinking Fund would be nearly £7,000,000 more, and went on to show that the Sinking Fund presented a larger proportion to the whole debt of the country than in any previous year; and he calculated that by March, 1008, it would amount to nearly £9,000,000 more. And the right hon. Gentleman wound up by saying that if the Debt was not added to, the whole charge for this gigantic debt would be swept away in fifty years. Now, not a penny of that debt had been reduced. It was larger now than when the right hon. Gentleman spoke. Then the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a year ago in his financial statement said that the Debt would be reduced in the course of the year by £5,600,000, but the Debt had not been reduced at all, as was shown by the black figures in the Return issued the day before. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there had been a total reduction of the dead-weight debt in the course of twelve months to the amount of £7,500,000. There would, however, not be a penny of reduction, but £2,000,000 would be added. All this language about reduction of debt ought to be excluded from Budget speeches if there was to be no reduction at all. He wanted to explain to the House how the nation was puzzled, if not disgusted. At the beginning of the session speeches were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they had great difficulty in finding out what the borrowings would amount to on the capital account. All they now knew was that there would be no real reduction of debt this year. The matter was becoming very serious and he thought it was time some step was taken. What was the reason that better control could not be obtained by the House over the finances of the nation? He thought that in the first place the responsibility rested with the Treasury and mainly with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. He must say, however, that the position of the Treasury among the Departments of the State was not what it used to be a few years ago. He would venture to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was not a mere cashier to find the money for his colleagues' extravagant projects. It was not his duty to go round the Departments, cap in hand, as it were, and say, "What do you want?" It was his business to keep down the expenditure of the country. The Treasury had been in years gone by the most autocratic controller of every Department, and it had been given this control in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might exercise it. He should not invite claims, but should inform the Departments that there was the necessity for rigid economy, and enforce it by preparing the Estimates in a way which the nation could afford. In the past they had had Chancellors of the Exchequer who recognised that that was the reason for the peculiar constitution of the Treasury. That was why it could go into all the other Departments, do what it liked, and exercise a firm control. Therefore he thought the Treasury ought to make itself the mouthpiece of the sentiment of economy so as to check extravagant Votes. He was willing to admit that the country had had an extravagant fit; at the time of the war he had protested against the expenditure, but at that time those who did so were in a minority. Now, however, they were in a majority and everybody thought with them. Every improvement in the price of the Funds seemed now to pass away rapidly. At the time the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget things looked better in the City and Consols went up two or three points. He did not know whether it was the consequence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's loan, but now things had got gloomy again. Consols were down, high-class securities had declined in value, and a spirit of fear and caution prevailed, the same as they had had to deal with in former times. The reason was that the nation was not satisfied that we were meeting our obligations. The question was, How were we to get back into a better state of affairs? There was only one answer that he could give to that question, and that was that expenditure must be reduced to a degree of which he recognised no sign on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the other members of the Government up to the present time. He was glad that there had been some reduction in the Navy, but it was not, in his opinion, sufficient. He thought the naval expenditure should be reduced down to £25,000,000, and that there should be a corresponding reduction in the Army Estimates. There was one aspect in Army expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might deal with. That was the huge expenditure upon our Colonies and upon foreign countries. In Egypt quite unnecessarily large amounts were paid. It was true that Egypt paid us £100,000 for military services. Why, then, should not the expenditure be restricted to that amount? The military cost in regard to Malta was £800,000, and he did not see why that should not be reduced to £250,000. The garrisons abroad in other places might, he considered, be reduced by half the amount which they at present cost? There were £6,000,000 spent in this way, and in his judgment the sum could be reduced to £2,500,000 or £3,000,000. He also thought they ought to listen to the appeals which the Secretary of the Treasury had made to them, and that they ought to endeavour, without causing any suffering to anyone, to assist the reduction of the national expenditure by declining to force new enterprises upon the Government. The moral of this story lay in the fact that the Debt was not being reduced. How could the Government say that the nation was going on well if it was not paying its debts? He observed that the Prime Minister, when he spoke about national defence, never spoke about our greatest national defence, that was the feeling of the capacity we had for, and our ability to incur, large expenditure if necessary. The Government by their policy had driven this country out of the position that it had occupied in those respects, and he trusted that if the Administration meant to remain in office much longer it would try to pick up some of the good traditions of its predecessors.

said he confessed that as he listened to the most interesting speech of the Prime Minister he was quite unable to reconcile his statement with the demands which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made upon the taxpayer, and ever since in thinking of this subject he had been continually saying to himself: What is the necessity for the British taxpayer to bear the great burden which is put upon his back. He wanted to address the House upon that speech of the Prime Minister in the hope of getting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury and the clauses of the Finance Bill. The statement made by the Prime Minister was not a mere speech upon a large national position. It was a statement arrived at after taking the advice of the greatest and best naval and military experts which the country possessed, and it represented the deliberate policy of the British Government upon the subject of national defence, a policy known to and adopted by every member of the present Cabinet, and announced to the nation and to the world at large as the fixed determination of the British Government. One of the most striking parts of that declaration dealt with the impossibility of the invasion of this country. That subject was not new to the House of Commons because it had been dwelt upon by the Secretary of State for War in proposing the Army Estimates, but it was stated, of course, by the Prime Minister with much greater authority and much greater weight. And he supposed that they might take it as the deliberate opinion of the British Government, with access to all the expert advice and all the knowledge which was possessed by the Members of the House or by the nation at large, that they might be satisfied that the country could not be invaded. The view which was put before the country by the Government twenty years ago in the Army Estimates was that it was supposed to be necessary to make provision some possibility at least of the invasion of this country, and therefore the discovery and the determination that such an invasion was impossible ought to lead to a reduction of Army expenditure from that expenditure which they all thought and which the Government told them was essential twenty years ago. The second remarkable statement made by the Prime Minister was one made in direct contradiction to what had previously been stated to Parliament by the Secretary of State for War when that right hon. Gentleman was defending the increase of Army expenditure notwithstanding the opinion which he and the Government had formed as to the impossibility of invasion. The Secretary of State for War based his statement upon the necessity of being ready immediately to defend the frontiers of India against possible incursions by some other Power. He mentioned Russia, which, of course, was the only Power which could attack us in that part of the world. He had listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for War with very great astonishment because twenty years ago he had the honour of holding the office of Under-Secretary for India, and he was quite familiar with the military opinion on the defence of the frontiers of India which then prevailed. He did not like to intervene in the debate because he thought he might make a fool of himself, and that matters might have been discovered in recent years which changed the situation, or that military opinion had altered, and that if he were to attack the Secretary of State for War on the subject he ran the risk of placing himself in the position of an ignorant Member of Parliament who was not qualified to speak on the subject. But what was his amazement when the Prime Minister not only contradicted the statement of the Minister for War, but actually announced as the fixed, the stable policy of the British Government the opinion held by military authorities twenty years ago, namely, that it was impossible for Russia or any other Power to make an attack upon the Indian frontier until they had constructed railways through Afghanistan. Between the two Empires there was the wild and inhospitable country of Afghanistan, and no force could cross to attack the Indian frontier unless railways were first made in that country. The Ameer in former days was very reluctant to allow railways to be made. At one time there was a proposal to construct a railway to Kandahar, but it was abandoned because Abdurrahman, a very wise ruler, objected to it. On the other hand there was no reason to suppose that Afghanistan would be more complaisant to Russia. Russia could not make the railway to Herat without incurring the deadly hostility of Afghanistan. The moral which the Prime Minister drew was that there was no hurry at the present moment about the advance on the Indian frontier, and that there was no need this year to get up a great force in order to reinforce the troops on the frontier of India.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the Prime Minister's statement as to the reinforcements which would be required in the first year of a war?

said he quite remembered the Prime Minister's words, but he did not think that Russia for many years to come would think of making an attack upon India. They did not know how long the present war might go on, but no attack on the part of Russia, to whom he did not impute any intention to make one, could be made until the present struggle was over and until Russia had somewhat recovered its finances and its strength after the terrible conflict in which she was at present engaged. Under those circumstances there was no hurry to make preparations for a struggle on the North-West Frontier of India, and he asked whether, if that was so, there really was any necessity for this increased military expenditure? Just contrast the condition of things twenty years ago and the condition of things now. Twenty years ago we thought that we were liable to invasion and had to make some provision against it. We also held the same views upon the protection of the Indian frontier that occurred in the Prime Minister's statement. Now, therefore, when we were in consequence of those views relieved from the necessity of keeping an Army at home in order to protect our country, our military expenditure was enormously greater than it was twenty years ago. We had the largest military expenditure of any nation in the world, except Russia. If any steps were to be taken against our great dependency of India they could not be initiated until preliminary works had been completed which it would take years to construct. In view of these facts what he wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them was on what ground, after the Defence Committee had come to the conclusions which were announced last week, the expenditure on the Army had been increased. He quite agreed that it was necessary for us to keep a great and powerful Fleet, but if it was possible to diminish the expenditure on that Fleet during the current year by a sum of not less than £3,500,000, when they turned to the Army he should have thought that there would have been a still greater reduction there because there economy would appear to be more easy than in the Navy. But they found that so far from there being a decrease there was actually an increase in Army expenditure, and as a humble ratepayer he could not conceive why after the statement made by the Government, after consultation with the Imperial Committee of Defence, there should be an increase on the Army, which was defended by the War Minister on grounds which were diametrically opposed to the statement of the Prime Minister.