asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the recent order of the French War Office that the use of monoplanes in the aviation schools is to be discontinued until certain defects in their construction have been remedied; if a similar order has been issued by the War Office; and if the matter is being especially studied, having regard to this warning?

Yes. The attention of the War Office has been called to this order. No special order has been issued by the War Office.

asked what is the present condition of the Army dirigible airships; are they provided with crews for their navigation and are they navigated from time to time; and, if so, why do they not visit London so that the public may have the same opportunity of seeing them that the public in Paris and Berlin have from time to time?

In answer to the first part of the question there are two airships at present available for service. They are provided with crews which can navigate them and do so from time to time. I do not see how the suggestion in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question can be followed as they are fully engaged in training officers.

Are they really making occasional flights as those in France and Germany do, or is it the fact that they are only kept within the sheds at Aldershot and do not make any flights?

They are capable of making extensive flights, but they are used chiefly for training officers. I do not think that bringing them to London, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would be the best way of achieving that object.

What has become of the Clément-Bayard airship which was taken over by the Government? Has any attempt been made to make use of it since it was purchased?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question with regard to the Clément-Bayard, I will give him a full account of it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how much is to be spent this year on the construction or purchase of dirigible airships for use with the Army; how much on the training of crews to navigate them; and if his attention is being directed to the increasing numbers of these airships constructed on the Continent and to the use that is being made of them by the Italian Army in the operations in Tripoli?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down this question again, as I have not got the figures with me at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has yet made further inquiries into the case of Colour-Sergeant Moore, late company instructor at the Royal Hibernian Military School; and whether, in view of the fact that this man was discharged from his post for no offence and that through inability to obtain employment he is now in poverty, he will give an undertaking to provide him with employment at the Duke of York's School, as a War Office messenger, or in some other Government service?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Colour-Sergeant Moore has obtained a situation in Canada. I have not yet ascertained what the situation is.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that General French stated in 1910 the Yeomanry squadrons were very much hampered during their annual training by recruits who were without the elementary knowledge necessary to fit them for the ranks, he could say whether all these recruits have done the necessary preliminary drills, as laid down in the Regulations for the training of the Territorial Force; and, if not, whether they were deprived of their pay, as laid down in Appendix 6, Sub-appendix I., Training of Yeomanry?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put down this question until after Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that forty-one officers and 6,703 non-commissioned officers and men absented them- selves altogether without leave from camp training in 1911, he could say how many of them were punished for this breach of discipline, and of what the punishments consisted; and are these officers and men still borne on the strength of the Territorial Force?

No statistics are available at the War Office which would give the information required. It would involve a great deal of labour to prepare statistics of the officers and men who were absent from annual training in camp, and if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me I should like to avoid giving this extra trouble to the Department.

Is it not the case that as regards each individual unit the figures are available?

We could get the information both with regard to this and some following questions, but it would involve a great deal of labour. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman insists on it, I will get the information, but in view of the great labour involved I think that it is not necessary.

Were any of these officers and men punished, and, if not, why not?

Of course action can be taken with regard to every man who fails to attend under the Territorial Forces Act, and with regard to officers disciplinary action is taken in some cases, and in the case of, I think, eleven officers, they have left the country. If the hon. Member wants the information and insists upon it, it shall be obtained.

Cannot these statistics be obtained quite easily by the secretaries to the Territorial Associations, as each county would have all the statistics at hand?

That is not my information. I inquired at the War Office, and the different officials concerned pointed out the great mass of correspondence which would be involved in obtaining the information.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return showing the average number of drills performed by the non-commissioned officers and men of the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry, respectively, of the Territorial Force, exclusive of camp training, during the year ending 30th September, 1911?

I will obtain the information asked for in this question.

asked whether Colonel Satterthwaite had been appointed as the representative of the Territorial Force upon the Headquarters Staff at £150 a year; what time he would be expected to give to his duties for that rate of salary; whether he would have an office; and what assistance will be afforded him?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Colonel Satterthwaite has been appointed at a salary of £150 a year. It is not a whole time appointment; he does in point of fact give a considerable amount of time to his duties. He retains the other appointment which the hon. Gentleman knows he now holds; his duties are advisory. He does not do routine work. I think the arrangement made a good one.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would try to get adjutants who give their whole time to the Territorial Force adequate pay?

I do not think that arises out of the question.

asked what is the annual training laid down under the Australian Defence Act of 1910 for junior cadets, for senior cadets, and for members of the citizen forces?

I am having a list of all the qualifications for the cadets of Australia circulated with the Votes.

asked what is the total number of days of training which an Australian cadet has to undergo between the ages of twelve and eighteen years of age under the Australian Defence Act, taking a whole day's drill at six hours; and what is the total number of days' training which an Australian soldier of the citizen forces will have to undergo between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five?

I will circulate this.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have his full answers circulated with the Votes, as they do not seem to have arrived?

I have said with regard to this question referring to Australia in reply to No. 10 that I would have a full statement circulated. I never intended to give the information now, because it would involve the taking of too much time at Question Time.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture what interim fishery Grants from the Development Fund will now or will shortly be available?

Interim Grants have been made to the Board from the Development Fund in aid of fishery research work to be carried out by the following bodies, namely:—

Lancashire and Western Local Fisheries Committee	£1,640
Marine Biological Association	500
Eastern Local Fisheries Committee	50
Liverpool Marine Biological Committee	100
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth	50
	£2,340

asked whether, in view of the fact that under Section 1 (2) of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, every person who sells for use as food for cattle any article which has been artificially prepared is bound to give to the purchaser an invoice stating what are the respective percentages, if any, of oil and albuminoids contained in such article, and that Section 6 (1) (a) of the same Act makes it an offence to fail to give the invoice required thereby, neglect to state in an invoice, as in the case of Bastol, as high a proportion of oil as 1 per cent. and of albuminoids as 1.93 per cent., is deemed by the Board to be no offence under the Act; and, if so, for what reason?

In the cases in which an analysis of Bastol has either been submitted to or obtained by the Board, the percentages of oil and albuminoids were considerably less than those stated in the hon. Member's question, and it did not appear that they had any feeding value. No useful purpose would have been served by the institution of proceedings for neglect to include particulars of those percentages in the invoice.

Is it not a fact, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, that his own Department in respect of this Act are contravening its express provisions?

No; I certainly could not admit it. In fact, there is no weight in the argument.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of inviting some of the more important Crown Colonies and Dependencies to appoint visiting Trade Commissioners who could bring before the commercial community of this country the capabilities of their respective Colonies for providing raw materials and other products, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom only received 32.8 per cent. of the exports from these parts of the Empire in the year 1910?

There are already several organisations in this country, both of a public and of a semipublic character, which endeavour to promote the use of the commercial resources of the Crown Colonies and Protectorates and to bring them to the notice of the trade interests in this country. In the circumstances I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by the adoption of the hon. Member's proposal.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to spend a few thousands of pounds to capture a trade worth £68,000,000?

It is not a question of economy. I believe the work is efficiently done by the bodies I have already mentioned.

Are we to understand that none of the Crown Colonies have any official representative in any of these organisations which are supposed to assist in developing the commercial relations between the Colonies and this country?

I am not quite sure what definition the hon. Member would give of "official representative." We certainly have representatives on some of these bodies to which I was alluding—the West India Committee, the Asociation of Malay States, various chambers of commerce, like the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, which has a West African section, and the Imperial Institute.

Has any Crown Colony or Dependency a trade commission, as we understand a trade commission?

No; I think not.

Have any of those associations an official status?

I should say none has an official status, except perhaps the Imperial Institute.

asked whether the Royal Commission to inquire into the trade of the Empire would include a representative of India?

The answer is in the negative, for the reason that the Resolution under which the Royal Commission is to be appointed related only to the parts of the Empire represented at the Conference, and did not therefore include India or the Crown Colonies.

asked (1) whether the Secretary for the Colonies is aware that, under Sections 23 and 24 of the Nyasaland Ordinance, No. 6, of 1909, as amended by Section 3 of the Nyasaland Ordinance, No. 14, of 1911, any person who causes or attempts to cause any native to leave the Protectorate by any suggestion or advice whatsoever may be convicted of a criminal offence, and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment; whether there is any precedent for legislation of this character; and, seeing that the Ordinance interferes with the liberty of the subject and is opposed to the best interests of the natives themselves, whether he will issue instructions to have the terms modified; (2) whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Rhodesian farmers pay £1 a month for native labour, whereas the rate current in Nyasaland for similar work is only 5s.; that there is a superfluity of labour in Nyasaland requiring an outlet for its energies, and that in the present conditions that outlet is closed; that the net result of these restrictions is to keep the Nyasaland natives in idleness or to compel them to work for a far lower rate of pay than they can obtain elsewhere; and whether he will consider the advisability of permitting these British subjects to sell their labour as they themselves may think best and not enforce them to hire themselves out to masters who do not pay them the price their labour will fetch amidst the equally healthy surroundings in Rhodesia?

The hon. Member's statement of the law is correct. I know of no precedent, but the legislation has been framed to meet exceptional conditions, and I cannot accent his suggestion that it is opposed to the best interests of the natives. I am aware that the wages paid by farmers to native labourers in Rhodesia are considerably in excess of those paid in Nyasaland for similar work, but I am not prepared to admit that there is a superfluity of labour in Nyasaland. The evidence, indeed, in my possession points to the opposite conclusion, and, in view of the rapid development of the Protectorate and of the fact that this development will be accelerated by the improvements which are about to be made in the means of communication, I see reason to apprehend a shortage of labour in the near future. Moreover, I consider that the Nyasaland Government is amply justified in restricting as far as possible the emigration of natives from the Protectorate, if for no other reason than that such emigration is entirely subversive of domestic and tribal ties, and imposes considerable hardship on the wives and children who are left behind.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions of native labour in Rhodesia are generally superior to the conditions of native labour in Nyasaland, and that the mortality of native labour in Rhodesia is very much less than in Nyasaland, or is comparatively insignificant?

No; I do not think I should be prepared to admit that statement.

asked whether the attention of the Secretary for the Colonies has been called to the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor of Ceylon at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 24th April, 1911, in which he announced that the sanction of the Secretary of State had been obtained for the appointment of two superintending medical officers on the staff of the medical department, and further stated that it was proposed that these new staff appointments should be filled by European medical men; whether this reservation of certain posts for Europeans only is contrary to the settled policy of the Colonial Office in Ceylon; and whether this reservation has the approval of the Secretary of State?

The proposal which was made by the Governor and which my predecessor approved was that these two new posts should usually be recruited from Europe, unless there were local applicants possessing very exceptional merits, qualifications and attainments. This is the policy to which I propose to adhere. The passage in the Governor's speech to which my hon. Friend refers appears to relate especially to the first two appointments to be made after the creation of the new offices, which have now been filled by the transfer of experienced officers from another Colony.

Are we to understand that these posts in future are not to be specifically reserved for Europeans only?

I think the hon. Member ought not to understand more than I definitely stated.

May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman stated?

My hon. Friend will read the answer to-morrow and can form his own opinion as to what I mean by it.

May I ask whether these posts are being reserved for Europeans at present?

I was referring to appointments to these two posts, which have been generally given to Europeans.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider these hostile questions unfortunate, in view of the recent conclusion of their joint labours in another sphere?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that until four or five years ago the post office at Marlborough was open until 9 p.m., and that since the hours of opening have been reduced successively to 8.30 p.m. and now to 8 p.m.; and whether he has been able to make arrangements for the posting of parcels up to a later hour than 8 p.m.?

I have carefully considered the matter, and regret that I do not see my way to make special arrangements for the acceptance of parcels after 8 p.m. at the Marlborough Post Office.

asked whether the Postmaster-General is aware that, following the withdrawal of the organised rest reliefs, an unusual amount of sickness has obtained in the Manchester trunk exchange, and that the local authorities have been compelled to requisition assistance from the telegraph branch in order to meet the permanent shortage of staff; whether this arrangement has his sanction; and whether, in view of the fact that the medical committee reported favourably on the system of organised rest reliefs, he will order that the system be restored?

I am having inquiry made, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

asked the number of appointments or promotions to the secretarial or surveyors' establishments of the Post Office, by nomination and by competitive examination, respectively, during the last three years; and if the Postmaster-General can say whether the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of appointment to and promotion in the Civil Service will receive evidence from representatives of the various grades regarding the restrictions imposed during recent years against progress from the lower to the higher grades of the Post Office?

Nine officers have been appointed to the secretary's office (higher grade) by open competition within the last three years, and two by selection from existing classes of the Post Office. For the similar class of the surveying service, the numbers are five by open competition and five by selection from Post Office classes. No outsider was appointed otherwise than by open competition. I am not aware to what restrictions the hon. Member refers, but in any case it will be for the Royal Commission to determine what evidence it will receive.

asked whether there are numerous complaints that the present rates of postage on small parcels operate injuriously on the transmission of small packets of agricultural produce by post; and whether, in order to encourage direct trading between the producer and consumer, the Postmaster-General would grant exemption of charge on wrappers enclosing farm produce of one, two, or three pounds weight, respectively, or, in the alternative, charge a uniform rate of 1d. per pound on wrappers enclosing the said quantities?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the written answer which I gave him on the 21st of March in reply to a similar question.

asked whether the attention of the Postmaster-General has been drawn to the Debate in the Canadian House of Commons upon cable rates; whether he is aware that Mr. Lemieux moved a resolution in favour of the further reduction of cable rates between Great Britain and Canada, and demanded 6d. a word for ordinary traffic and 3d. a word for Press messages, and that the Canadian Postmaster-General stated that he had asked the Postmaster-General to use his authority to promote easy and cheap communication between the Mother-country and Canada; and will he say what he proposes to do to carry out the wish of Canada, as expressed by all parties in the Canadian House, for a cable owned by British subjects not controlled by Foreign capital?

I am aware that in the Debate to which the hon. Member refers a general desire was expressed in the Canadian House of Commons for cheap and easy communication between Canada and the United Kingdom, a desire which is fully shared by His Majesty's Government; but no resolution was adopted in favour of any specific rates or recommending any definite lines of policy. The Postmaster-General of Canada stated that he did not think that a State-owned cable would be necessary. When the question of a State-owned cable to Canada was considered by the Imperial Conference last year, I intimated that endeavours were being made to obtain a reduction of 50 per cent. in favour of non-urgent messages in plain language, and also, if possible, a reduction in the rate for Press telegrams. These reductions have since been secured, together with a large reduction in the rates for deferred messages known as cable-letters. I do not wish to regard these reductions as final, but I cannot see my way to demand further reductions at present. Any company coming forward to lay a cable owned by British subjects between Canada and the United Kingdom, either with a reduced tariff or at the rates now in force, would be welcomed by His Majesty's Government; but they are not prepared to grant a subsidy for the formation of such a company.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government would not consider it advisable, in view of the opinions they hold, to make direct proposals to the Canadian Government concerning this All-British cable route, inasmuch as the Colonies or Oversea Dominions do not hesitate to make important proposals to this Government when they consider it necessary?

His Majesty's Government are not in favour of a State-owned Atlantic cable.

Is it not a fact that the Canadians are not at all pleased with the present rates even since the reduction, and that New Zealand strongly favours the laying of a State-owned Atlantic cable?

I know that further reductions are much desired on both sides of the Atlantic.

May I ask the Postmaster-General, in reference to the last part of his answer, whether a proposal has been made by any company in this country to lay a cable with British capital, and with cheaper rates?

No, Sir; not that I am aware of.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act will shortly come into operation, he will state the acreage of land in Scotland formerly cultivated but now lying under grass or out of cultivation, more especially in the county of Perth; and, if he is not in possession of the figures, will he take steps to obtain them?

May I ask, as the question is not clear, will the right hon. Gentleman interpret the word "formerly" as from the date when Free Trade was first introduced?

I cannot put new interpretations on the question at the last moment. The latest statistics on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers will be found in the Agricultural Statistics for 1910 (Vol. XLV., Part I, Acreage and Live Stock Returns of Great Britain, Cd. 5585–1911), particularly in Tables 4 and 5 as to individual Counties, and Table 20 as to Scotland as a whole.

asked the right hon. Member for the Epping Division, as Chairman of the. Kitchen Committee, whether there is any intention of altering the price of the dinner for which the charge hitherto has been 1s.?

The Kitchen Committee recently appointed will consider the question on the first opportunity. I have traced the constitutional history of the 1s. dinner to its source. In May, 1899, it was introduced to Members, and consisted of choice of three joints (one helping), with vegetables, cheese, butter, and bread. On 17th May, 1905, the 1s. dinner was made to include the choice of two sweets in addition to joint (sometimes three helpings), vegetables, cheese, butter, and bread. Members will see that on the foundation laid in May, 1899, a superstructure has been raised that is a regular "skyscraper." Since 1905 rare and refreshing dinners have dropped into hon. Members mouths, who have been receiving nearly 1s. 6d. for 1s. The dinner is now partaken of by over 50 per cent. of the House. To show how great is the consumption of dinners in this House at the price of 1s., I quote the following figures: Number of meals served in the Members' dining rooms during the week ending 15th March, 1912, was 1,329. Of these 805 of the bills were 1s., approximately 60 per cent.; week ending 23rd March, 1912, the number was 2,090, and of these 1,126 of the bills were 1s., approximately 54 per cent.

May I ask in view of the fact that Members now get £400 per year—

Scandalous.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the dinner ought either to be reduced or the price increased?

I will lay the Noble Lord's suggestion before the Kitchen Committee.

Is it not the fad that the price of champagne sold to Members is five shillings per bottle below the price for which they could buy it outside and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the price of the champagne?

Rather following the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I always try to follow, we put on a super-tax, and the price of champagne has been considerably raised during the last year and a-half.

:Is it not the fact that it is five shillings per bottle less than the price at which they could buy it outside?

It depends on where the hon. Member buys it.

May I say I never buy any at all.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact, as disclosed by him, that the proportion of imports from the United Kingdom, in the year 1910, into parts of the British Empire, other than the self-governing Dominions and India, only amounted to 26.4 per cent. of their total imports, and that the United Kingdom only received 32.8 per cent. of the exports of these Colonies and Dependencies, he will appoint a Special Committee to inquire into the means by which the Mother-country may obtain a larger share of the trade, in view of the heavy burdens incurred in the administration, defence, and diplomatic representation of these parts of the Empire?

My right hon. Friend sees no occasion for the appointment of a Committee. The hon. Member has left out of account the figures which my right hon. Friend was careful to give him showing how large a proportion of the trade of these Colonies is inter-Imperial. Thus, in addition to the 26.4 per cent. of the imports into the parts of the Empire referred to in the question which were derived from the United Kingdom, a further 38.5 per cent. (making 64.9 per cent. in all) were derived from other parts of the Empire. Moreover, the apparent imports from foreign countries are enormously swollen owing to the fact that several of the Colonies included are large distributors of goods. No less than half of the thirty-two million pounds' worth of foreign imports into the parts of the Empire referred to consist of imports into the Straits Settlements mainly for distribution in the Far East, and a large proportion of the foreign imports into such Colonies as Aden, Malta, and Ceylon are, no doubt, redistributed in a similar way. The exports are mainly sent, if not to the United Kingdom, at least to some part of the Empire.

I beg to give notice that to-morrow three weeks I will call attention to the present unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to the use of the title of "bank" for certain private trading concerns, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that on 24th April I will call attention to seditious, inciting, and treasonable speeches delivered in recent months by certain Privy Councillors, and move a Resolution.

I beg to give notice that to-morrow three weeks I will call attention to the seditious, incendiary, and treasonable speeches delivered during recent months by certain Privy Councillors, and move a Resolution.

I beg to ask leave to bring in a Bill "to provide for checking the weight or measurement of marials produced, handled, or gotten by workmen paid by weight or measure in certain industries."

In 1907 a Bill having a similar object was carried without a Division, and was committed to a Committee of the Whole House, because of the fact that the Government had decided that they would set up a Departmental Committee for the purpose of making inquiry into the matter. That Departmental Committee was presided over by Sir Ernest Hatchbart, and amongst its members were two employers of labour, Mr. George Ainsworth, manager of the Consett Steel and Iron Company, one of the largest concerns in the county, and Mr. Ed. Eccles, who has occupied the high position of High Sheriff of Glamorganshire and chairman of the South Wales Steel Employers' Association; two representatives of the men, as representing a section of the iron and steel trade; and Mr. Morgan, K.C., then Member of Parliament for West Glamorgan. After hearing evidence and visiting various works as to the practicability of a desire for this checkweighing that Committee came to a unanimous finding. Notwithstanding that, and in spite of the expenditure of public money, the Hone Department have failed entirely to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. Hence my desire to have the matter placed before the House as I feel confident that, employers and workmen having agreed as to the desirability of a measure of this character, no section of the House would for a moment wish to treat such a Bill as of a controversial character. The agitation for this measure of justice has been carried on for many years, and deputations ever since 1893 have appeared at the Home Office, and Home Secretary after Home Secretary has agreed as to the justice of the case, and that, judging from the evidence of the men, a primâ facie, case was made out for a measure of this character. We hear a great deal these days about industrial unrest. Here the House has an opportunity of getting rid of one case, so far as unrest is concerned. In the navvy districts, where men are paid by weight in this way there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, because, when they are paid by measurements they have no real assurance that they are paid according to the amount of work they have done. For these reasons, I ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill for the purposes I have already mentioned.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hodge, Mr. Gill, Mr. William Thorne, Mr. Parker, Mr. Pointer, and Mr Clynes. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th May, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

The expenditure last year aggregated £178,545,000, and the revenue of the year came to £185,090,000. That leaves a balance of £6,545,000, which is, I believe, the largest realised surplus on record. The particulars will appear in the printed Paper which has been left at the Vote Office, and of which I perceive the majority of Members have already secured copies. I ventured to predict last year, when making my annual Budget Statement, that we were in for a sunny year. That has been realised not merely metaphorically but actually; but the prosperity of trade exceeded my most sanguine expectations. I budgetted on the assumption that it was going to be a year of good trade. All the taxes which are a test of good employment and prosperity have gone beyond the most hopeful expectations of my advisers. They have all done well in spite of the arresting hand of a great strike. Most of them have exceeded the Estimates. Three only have been disappointing. The first is sugar. Owing to the drought the sugar harvest failed and the price at a certain period of the year was more than double what it was at the beginning of the year. High prices always mean limited consumption, a truism worth repeating in a financial statement. It is proof of the great prosperity of the year that, in spite of the fact that prices were almost doubled, the consumption exceeded the consumption of the preceding year. But the estimate was not realised by £321,000 although the yield exceeded that of the two previous years. The same thing applies to tea. This estimate was not realised by the sum of £141,000, although the yield exceeded that of the previous year. There were two explanations of this. One, I am told, is that a good many tea estates have been converted into rubber plantations, and the rubber boom is partly responsible for the decrease in the production of tea in the East. The second explanation is the strike; that had a very considerable effect upon this and other items of revenue during the last month. That applies also to stamps. On the whole, I estimate that the loss to the Revenue up to 31st March directly attributable to the strike —I am referring to the miners' strike— amounts to £400,000. But taking all the other taxes which are generally regarded as a test of good or bad trade, they have done exceedingly well—spirits, beer, tobacco, the Petrol Tax, the Motor Tax, the Post Office, and the Income Tax. Under spirits and beer we have received £2,016,000 above the estimate.

Could we have the amount of the increase for each?

Quoting from memory, I think there was an increase of nearly £700,000 under beer; the rest would be spirits. I budgetted for a large increase in petrol and motor licence duty, but that estimate was exceeded by a sum of over £200,000 and the Income Tax Estimate was exceeded by £504,000. The Post Office was doing remarkably well up to the end of February. Then, entirely owing to the strike, there was a falling off, and we lost about £40,000 during the month of March; but, on the whole, the Budget Estimate has been realised. These results prove that the community as a whole and every class of the community shared in this prosperity. Not merely with the well-to-do but with the wage-earning class there was evidently a considerable margin for indulgencies, such as alcoholic liquors and petrol. Even the underspending, to a certain extent, is a proof of good trade, because the underspending in the Admiralty is partly due, though not entirely, to the fact that all the shipbuilding yards were so full up with private orders that there was a difficulty in finding rivetters and they could not turn any more men on. Therefore shipbuilding slowed down; they could not keep up with the programme, and this underspending is proof of the excellent trade which the country enjoyed last year. The surplus, therefore, is a by-product of great national prosperity. The actual amount of the surplus was, as I have said, £6,545,000, and but for the strike it would have been £7,000,000.

What, more than £5,000?

Yes; I agree it is a very startling figure. I was struck with it, and I made further investigations. The total produced last year by the new duties was £6,300,000. I have just analysed the new duties and the new taxes showing how they fell, in order to demonstrate to the Committee that there was no tax there upon the necessaries of life, and to prove there was no tax there to interfere with trade, business, and commerce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I observe that is challenged. I now come to the fourth proposition I laid down, that these taxes should not be of such a character as to hamper and handicap business. What was the condition of trade in April, 1909, when the Budget was introduced? Unemployment had reached almost the highest figure it had attained for years in this country. We were passing through a period of profound depression. The very controversy we were engaged in—whether there was any foundation at all for the criticism or not—might have been expected to have had the effect of postponing any trade development. One or two of the criticisms upon the proposals of the Government were of a character to make people believe their property was in danger, that their investments were in danger. The majority of the property-owning class in this country, I think, profoundly believed it at the time. I believe they were sincerely frightened. So you had everything in those statements that would have the effect of retarding the development of trade, apart from any real foundation for them. What happened? In spite of all that, soon after the Budget was introduced, trade began to boom and unemployment began to diminish. It has gone on in an unbroken record of prosperity ever since, until unemployment before the strike had reached almost the lowest point it had ever touched in this country, an unbroken record of growing prosperity, expanding business, increasing profits, better employment. Our exports have increased by 20 per cent.; and, if the old saying is an accurate one, that half of that increase went in wages, you must have had an increase of £40,000,000 in the wages bill of this country. Both our home and our foreign trade were doing well. Wherever you looked before the strike, which is a purely temporary incident, you had growing bank deposits and an enormous increase in bankers' clearances, showing great trade activity; and, what still more remarkable, the increase in bankers' clearances was not merely in London, which might mean only Stock Exchange transactions, but it was still more marked in the provinces, where they represent real business. Factories working full time and overtime, collieries at full pressure, ships that were lying idle three years ago at full work and with excellent freights, new tonnage added by the million, and, the surest test of all, increasing traffic receipts on our railways—that is the best answer to those who predicted ruin from the Budget of 1909. I am sure we must all without distinction of party feel glad, because he must be a poor patriot indeed who does not rejoice in the prosperity of his own country lest perchance the avowal of it might do some damage to the party to which he belongs.

I have no doubt I shall be asked, What about the Land Taxes? From the kind of statements which are being made, anyone might imagine that I had anticipated the Land Taxes would produce millions during the first few years, and that I relied on them as the mainstay of my financial provision for necessary reforms. It was quite the reverse. I made it perfectly clear that the tax which I put forward as the most productive, the Increment Tax, was a tax the productiveness of which must necessarily be postponed for a few years, and, as a matter of fact, Lord Rosebery, in his great attack on the Budget, referred to the Land Tax as "that violent onslaught on the land which is, according to the statements of it? promoters, to bring in little or nothing." That was said at the time. Indeed, for the first few years I agreed that half the revenue from them should be given to the local authorities. I could not, therefore, have felt dependent on the revenue from the receipts of the Land Taxes for the purposes of defraying the general charges which I saw in sight. They have been in operation two years. Last year I estimated the revenue at £700,000. They have realised £200,000 less than that, but that is less than 1 per cent, of the total additional revenue produced by the Budget. Let me point out that in the nature of things they cannot, for a few years, produce a large revenue. The valuation will not be complete for four or five years from the date of the Budget—I said so at the time—and you cannot levy the Undeveloped Land Tax until the valuation is complete. We have already valued one-fifth of the land of the Kingdom. I have no doubt at all that, preliminary difficulties having been overcome, and the staff having been increased, we shall value at a greatly accelerated pace, and at the end—well, within the three years I have mentioned—we shall have in this country what they have in every other civilised country, a great national survey of the land, which will be available for the purposes of the readjustment of local taxation, and which, I have no doubt, will be available for equally important public purposes of another character.

But even if the whole Undeveloped Land Duty came in I never put it higher than £300,000. The Reversion Duty I never put very high, and the Royalties I put at £350,000, and they again cannot go higher without putting more on them. Therefore these three taxes were never estimated to produce very much in the future. The three were estimated to produce less than a million sterling, and the only tax which I looked forward to as being of a very productive character was the Increment Duty. I am still of that opinion. But, in the very nature of things it is a tax which will yield revenue only in the future. Why? You tax upon the increment on the value as fixed in April, 1909, and you have to wait until the land increases in value from that date. There was an Amendment passed in Committee that there should be 10 per cent, on the top of that. You have, therefore, to wait not merely till the value of the land grows—and it is growing very rapidly in spite of the Land Taxes—you have to wait till it grows above the 10 per cent, which is added on. I have a test which I am prepared to put to those who contend that these taxes are not going to produce much money. We give a certain amount of money to the local authorities in composition for their right to one-half of the Land Taxes. I believe that bargain expires next year. If there is anyone in this Committee who believes that these taxes are not going to yield a real revenue in the future this is their opportunity. Are they prepared to release the Exchequer from the obligation which it is under to restore that half to the local authorities? If so, for how much? I am quite willing to make a bargain, and I have no doubt at all that, if it is done on the estimates placed on the Land Taxes on public platforms and in the House of Commons by their critics, the Exchequer is going to make a very good bargain indeed. I have reviewed the new taxes. I have told the House how much they have grown; how they have not merely come up to the anticipation of the Government in their yield, but have actually exceeded it; how they have met all the growing needs of the State from year to year, and have left us with a large surplus at the end of the third year—a surplus of £6,500,000, which would have been £7,000,000 had it not been for the great national strike.

I understand from the last observation of the right hon. Gentleman that he has estimated for an increase in the consumption of both beer and spirits. How is it that he expects less revenue?

I estimate for a 2 per cent increase in Beer and a 1.5 per cent increase in Spirits. But against this must be set a deduction in each case on account of the coal strike and also, further deductions in respect of excess stocks in the case of spirits and on account of the hot summer of 1911 in the case of beer. On the whole, the balance is against the Exchequer. That is why I estimate that there will be a loss on Excise as compared with the actual receipts last year.

Now I come to the Death Duties. These I estimate will be £25,450,000, which is £58,000 up on last year; Stamps I estimate at £9,400,000, which is £54,000 down on last year; Land Tax I estimate to be £700,000, which is £50,000 down on last year, but there were arrears included in last year's revenue; House Duty I estimate to be £2,000,000 which is £130,000 down on last year. That is because there were arrears included in last year's revenue from House Duty. I now come to Income Tax, and I should like to say one word upon that tax, because there is a remarkable development in this respect. Last year we had over £2,500,000 of arrears from the preceding year in our receipts of Income Tax for the year, so that the actual receipts of Income Tax did not represent the real normal Income Tax revenue for that year. We might therefore naturally expect that the Income Tax would be considerably down this year, but there is one circumstance which has intervened to prevent anything like a disastrous drop. The Income Tax, as the Committee know very well, is estimated on the average of the preceding three years' income of every person under a particular schedule. Last year we estimated Income Tax upon the basis of the average of the income derived by people in 1908, 1909, and 1910. This year 1908 drops out and 1911 comes in. The year 1911 was an exceptionally profitable one. The Inland Revenue have secured returns from representative traders in each particular industry, and upon the basis of these, actual returns they have come to the conclusion that the profits for last year were abnormal, and that they increased at a rate almost unprecedented in this country. By taking out the year which preceded the Budget of 1908–9 and substituting for it the third year after the experience of the Budget of 1909–10, the average has been raised so considerably as to go beyond the normal. Therefore this year I expect from the Income Tax—including Super-tax, which is standing for £3,500,000 instead of £3,000,000, as it was last year—a total of £44,100,000. That is a decrease of £704,000 on the actual receipts of last year. The Land Value Duties I expect to produce £545,000. The total tax revenue will be £153,795,000, being a decrease of £1,245,000.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the figures of the Mineral Rights Duty separately from the other Land Duties?

I will get the figures by the time I reply and give the right hon. Gentleman the information in the course of the evening. I cannot give the figures at the present moment. The Post Office revenue is considerably up, because this year it includes a full year's revenue of the National Telephone service. This year I expect a revenue for postal, telegraph, and telephone services of £29,175,000. That is an increase of £3,475,000 upon last year. On Crown lands I estimate the revenue at £530,000, and the receipts from the Suez Canal shares and sundry loans are estimated at £1,289,000, being an increase of £8,000. Miscellaneous receipts are estimated at £2,400,000, being a decrease of £139,000. The total non-tax revenue is therefore estimated at £33,394,000. That gives a total revenue of £187,189,000. The total estimated expenditure is £186,885,000. I therefore estimate a surplus of £304,000 at the end of the year. That leaves no margin for reducing taxation, but it is encouraging for the Committee to know that in spite of the increased expenditure owing to insurance, and in spite of the fact that we are short by £500,000 which was properly attributable last year to the Admiralty, there is no need for imposing any fresh taxation.

I have only one or two more sentences I wish to address to the Committee. Lord Lansdowne, in moving the rejection of the Budget in 1909 in the House of Lords, said that he objected to these taxes because they were unproductive, and he added:—

"We make no secret of the fact that, in our view, this Budget is a confession that you have virtually exhausted the possibilities of a financial system based upon free imports."

Lord Curzon, in a very characteristic passage, said:—

"You are setting a veritable old man of the sea on the shoulders of the respectable and reputable classes of the community."

I need hardly quote the well-known words of Lord Rosebery, that it was "the end of all things." Now we have had three years of it, and the country is more prosperous than ever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is looking forward to the day when he will be standing at this table introducing a highly controversial Budget, and I am sure his supporters are looking forward to it with even more eagerness. For him will be the toil, the trouble, the worry and the anxiety, and for them will be the joy of battle. If, after three years' experience of that Budget, assuming that it ever comes into being, he is able to stand at this Table and to say, "This Budget, which was challenged so fiercely by the Opposition, produced a revenue of £12,000,000 the first year, £18,000,000 the second year, and £23,000,000 the third year, and from £24,000,000 to £25,000,000 the fourth year. I have raised that revenue without adding a single penny to the cost of the necessaries of life. I have done it without interfering with any trade or industry in the country. When I introduced that Budget I found trade at a low ebb, passing through a period of deep depression, and unemployment at its highest. Since then trade has gone up by leaps and bounds, and unemployment has decreased, and our present trade is the largest this country has ever seen." If he can say that, at the end of three years, then he will be entitled to congratulate himself upon having, at any rate, falsified the criticisms of his projects and realised the highest anticipations of his best friends. That is the story of the Budget of 1909.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not content with the task which is usually sufficient for a man of introducing and defending his own Budget, has been good enough, in his concluding observations, to make a speech for me, uttered at some future time, if ever again I have the honour to hold the office which he holds. I hope that, if ever I do make that speech, it will be better grounded than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I confess that, to listen to the right hon. Gentleman as he speaks to-day, one would believe that now in this year, for the first time, his Budget of 1909 was really at work, and that now therefore the country was enjoying a prosperity which it has never enjoyed before. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has made exactly the same remark in every preceding year, because within a week after the Budget was introduced he called upon the House to bear witness to its beneficent effect upon the price of Consols. Somehow no one had informed him that the Government broker had just been buying Consols, and Consols are not mentioned to-day except among the many commodities which we may hope to see cheaper under the present efficient administration. After all, that is not the serious side of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I should not on this occasion be right in taking the time of the Committee in going into that matter. By far the most important features of this statement were the forecasts of the year on which we have just entered, and the proposal which he has made to the House in regard to the Old Sinking Fund. Before I come to either of these matters I wish to run through some minor details in regard to some of which I have some comments to make, while in regard to others I wish to ask for further information. I think it would be of great interest to the Committee and to the country at largo if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would break up the figures of Customs and Excise and give us on a printed Paper, which might be prepared during the Recess, or presented soon after we reassemble, a statement of the yield of the various taxes under Customs and Excise over a period of five or six years, or any period he likes.

What period would you like?

Five or six years would be sufficient for my purposes, but if for any reason, on examining the figures, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that to take that particular period would be inaccurate, I should be satisfied to take eight or ten years, or anything that would make a fair comparison. But, as he is well aware, it has been the custom very commonly for Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past to go into detailed figures in regard to these different articles of consumption, and they are all of importance in forming an opinion, both as to the habits of the country, as to the capacity of our taxes, and in preparing Estimates for the ensuing year. On the figures which he has given, I am bold enough to say at once that he has put Excise for the coming year too low. I admit that the growth of Excise, unaccompanied by any similar growth in Customs during the past year, is very extraordinary and takes me by surprise. I admit that there is an explanation to be adduced in the case of sugar. I do not think that partial explanations, such as shortage of crop in these articles, or a less production of tea, really account for the great discrepancy between the relative movement of the Customs and Excise. I wonder whether both the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps I myself to an even greater extent, have not been wrong in regard to the normal stocks of spirits and perhaps Excise generally held by the dealers. I myself held very strongly, and I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held, though there would be some repletion of stocks after the disturbance of the Budget of 1909 was over, that they would not go back to anything like their former level. I wonder whether they have not increased beyond his expectations, and mine?

They are down considerably, even now, this year.

The stocks in the hands of dealers. I admit that the extent of the new duty, indicating apparently an increased consumption, takes me by surprise, and I wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give us a further explanation of it. It is, after all, a very speculative matter, no doubt, but I find it difficult to believe that the explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offers by any means explains the whole of that growth. He says that the working men last year had, for the first time in many years, begun to enjoy an increased spending power, but is that really so? Was it due so much previously to a contraction in the spending power of the working man as to the different choice of what he should spend his earnings on? A marked feature was the way in which the money that he used to spend on alcoholic drinks, and so on was spent in other forms of enjoyment: in travel, excursions, taking a holiday with his family, and so on. I do not believe that that process has been checked. I think that it has gone on continuously during last year, certainly during the summer season of the year, and that it is only now being affected in the Easter holidays by the industrial strike. But, on the other hand, I cannot believe that the general budgets of the working classes, for the necessities of life, are, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement would lead us to suppose, lower than what they were in 1904, 1905, and 1906. 1904–5, I think, was the year when I first called attention to this movement, which has been a permanent movement, whereas previously it had been thought to be only a temporary movement. Trade was not at all bad in 1905; but, taking that year and the three years following, I do not think it is true to say that the margin of the working classes for expenditure on luxuries has been increased, as compared with any of those years, in the year which has just ended, by reason of a drop in the prices of the necessaries of existence. Whatever the explanation is, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation really will not bear examination.

I would like to ask also for further details as to Post Office services. Whether he chooses to give them in making his replies this evening or circulate them as a printed Paper they will come out, I suppose; but it is of some importance to us that we should have the expenditure as well as receipts broken up among the different Departments of the Postal service, so that when considering the Post Office Vote, when very large demands for new expenditure are apt to be made on the Government, we may know where we are making money or where we are losing money, and whether we are continuing to secure from the great telephone business which we have just taken over profits comparable with those which they produced under private management. I attach great importance to that. I think that it is right when we embark so much of the State's capital in a great service of that kind we should obtain from the State a contribution in aid of taxes and of these services. I am wholly opposed to the idea of making these services barely self-supporting and not exacting from the Post Office a revenue in relief of that which we expect to get from what is usually called direct taxation or taxation on commodities. For those purposes I shall be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us further information about the prospects of the current year, assuming that they are not altogether overclouded by further industrial disturbances. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in making a sanguine forecast. For my part I am inclined to be more sanguine than he. I speak with less responsibility. I speak with less information, and perhaps it is very rash of me, when there is no necessity for me to prophesy at all, to venture into the realm of what is necessarily speculation, but I do think that in his estimate he has rather under-estimated the revenue which may be expected to be received from this source than over-estimated it. I am assuming the basis for calculation which he himself has taken that the present industrial dispute is rapidly drawing to a close. I do not feel it is desirable for the moment to enter into a discussion of that matter, but assuming that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen after consideration to adopt as the basis of his calculations, and assuming that the industrial position is not again disturbed on a large scale, then I think, speaking generally, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Estimates are low rather than high. I now turn to the contrast which the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew between the present position and the position three years ago. Then he said he was faced with the biggest deficit on record; now he had the greatest realised surplus, and he was able to provide for a greatly increased and ever-growing expenditure without any new taxation. His statement that he had got the largest realised surplus on record was largely cheered by hon. Gentlemen on his own side. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite the same satisfaction about it himself. It is partly due to mistaken Estimates for which he is responsible; it is partly due to mistaken Estimates for which his colleagues are responsible.

was understood to dissent.

I do not understand the First Lord of the Admiralty, who hastens to contradict. Does he choose himself to disclaim responsibility for the Estimates in his Department?

was understood to say: The circumstances connected with the excess in the Estimates could not be foreseen.

Were they mistaken Estimates; were the Estimates correct or were they not? They were not. That is the only statement I am making. There is a certain amount of satisfaction, a great deal of satisfaction to be got when your Estimates of revenue are exceeded because of an unforeseen and unforeseeable increase of prosperity in the country, but there is no satisfaction to be taken from the fact that you have raised money for a particular purpose in order to obtain particular services in return, and then, when you have not been able to obtain those services, the money remains in your pocket. That is what has happened in regard to about half this surplus. Owing to circumstances outside the control of the Admiralty—I do not in the least wish to say, I should be very far from saying that there has been a deliberate delay in the programme, in order to make a record for the Chancellor of the Exchequer— such a thought never crossed my mind, of course, but owing to circumstances which were not foreseen, and which were in themselves regrettable, we have not got for the Navy what we intended to have, what was placed before us as the minimum which we ought to have. Because we have not got it the money is not spent, the surplus is realised, but the liability remains for future years. When it comes to the rest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's congratulations I think there is something to be abated from them when you examine what they are and out of what they arise. Did anybody ever pretend that he was not going to get a great deal of money from the taxes which he proposed in 1909–10?

Oh, yes.