Now, I go on entirely different | in 1880 or in 1890, is it adequate in the lines. My complaint against the Chan- present year, in a time of unexampled cellor of the Exchequer in the present prosperity, with a largely increased and the two previous Budgets is that, so revenue? Let me present the House with far from his not having spent enough, he a single figure upon the subject. In has spent altogether too much. He has 1881-82 the net revenue, according to the remitted no special taxation, and has return of the honourable Member for made no special effort to diminish Wolverhampton, was £74,000,000 sterthe National Debt. He challenged ling; 10 years later it was £86,000,000; criticism upon his three Budgets. He has and this year we may take it that it will come into office at a time of exceptional be £103,000,000 or £104,000,000. Now, and unparalleled prosperity, when year six millions and a half of money devoted after year he has had gigantic surpluses to the reduction of debt, out of a revenue rolling in upon him, due in part to the of £74,000,000, is a much larger sum Finance Bill, and in part to the period than a similar sum devoted out of a of exceptional prosperity through revenue of £104,000,000. A very which we are passing. He has had these much larger sum, and devoted with surpluses rolling in without his having less burden upon the country. The imposed a single item of taxation. He burdens upon the country and the total has told us that the increase of the re- debt charge were just the same 20 years venue of the country during these three ago as they are to-day. The reduction years has been something like 12 millions is very much less now. The amount of money. He has told us he has spent devoted to the reduction of the debt it. He has added to the expenditure of charge was very much greater than you the country by the sum of 12 millions had; in 1887 about 34 per cent. was a year. I am not going to dwell devoted to that purpose, but only about upon a topic which has been touched so 25 per cent. is devoted to it now. I really well and deftly by the right honourable do think that the right honourable GentleGentleman the Member for West Mon- man the Chancellor of the Exchequer mouthshire, but there are two or three ought to give us now some reason why he observations which I should like to make had not given a greater reduction. with regard to this matter. First of all, During the three years he has been in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notwith- office he suspended the old sinking fund standing the opportunity he has had of so in the first year for the purpose of naval doing, has not diminished the national works, and in the second year for the indebtedness, but, on the other hand, has purpose of military, and this year for increased the expenditure of the country, the purposes of public buildings. and this year the right honourable Gentle- that way he has withdrawn a very conhas neglected the practice of siderable amount of money-from the old economy. With regard to the reduction sinking fund last year alone some three of debt he has told us in his Budget and a quarter millions of money. I am not speech that there was a reduction of six disputing his right to do that, but if he and a half millions of money. He was does do so it is clearly more incumbent asked by the right honourable Gentleman upon him to discover some alternative the Member for West Monmouthshire as means of reducing the debt of the country, to a million of money which comes in in and we are strengthened in making this the present year, but which will rank as demand by the Budget speech delivered a reduction for the year 1898-99. He stated that during the past 10 years by the right honourable Gentleman two In that speech he was pressed there had been a reduction of £66,000,000 years ago. of debt, and that that was an average of by the honourable Member for Wolversix and a half millions of money, per the reduction of the National Debt. The hampton to make some special effort for annum, and if he had cast his eye back he would have seen that the average would have gone back to the year 1880. The question I should like to ask is this: if six and a half millions of money per annum in reduction of debt is an adequate amount to devote to that purpose Mr. Buchanan, man In honourable Member for Wolverhampton quite recognised the difficulties of the position of the right honourable Gentleman at that time, owing to the price of Consols. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would rather not be pressed upon the subject then, but he would give | is, as I have said before, pre-eminently this matter his consideration, with a a war tax, which, if he reduces in times view of putting before the House and the of prosperity, he can easily increase again country some further and better pro- in times of trouble. The only other posals by which advantage might be point which I wish to urge is this: I taken of the exceptional prosperity of have stated how the Chancellor of the the country. I think we might now get Exchequer has not made use of his great some explanation from him on the sub- opportunities of reducing taxation, but ject. I do not propose to detain the more than that, and worse than that, he House in view of what has taken place has largely increased the permanent to-night and during the last two or three expenditure of this country. In times of years, and owing to the way in which we unparalleled prosperity he has told us have increased our naval expenditure with that the expenditure has gone up by 12 a view to meeting possible trouble in the millions of money. He has permanently future; but I do think the right honour- increased the naval and military expendiable Gentleman should have reduced that ture by six and a half millions of money. which is pre-eminently a war tax, namely, I am not disputing the right to do so. the income tax. If it had been put for- He has had the opinion of the House ward by any fiscal authority in this coun- and of the country behind him, and if try 10 years ago, or even six years ago, honourable Gentlemen want to find that the income tax should be left at 8d. fault with him upon that score, then they in the £ in such times of prosperity should find fault with the Government as we have had, no one would have been of which he is a Member, whose policy more surprised than the right honour- has made that expenditure necessary. able Gentleman himself. The first time He was justified in making that expendihe had the honour to hold the office ture, and he made it on the ground of which he now adorns was in 1885. He public opinion. He has increased the then had to make up a make-shift education expenditure by £1,750,000 and Budget, in order to carry on to the end local taxation by £2,500,000, and includof the year. One of the proposals then ing the amount required by the Irish Local made was that, in order to find money, Government Bill and the Scotch Local the income tax should be raised to 8d. Government Bill, which will come in the in the £, and that was consented to course of the next year or the year after, by the House. In the next year, 1886, he has increased the expenditure by the right honourable Gentleman the £3,000,000. In saddling a charge of this Member for West Monmouthshire, who kind upon the country, the Chancellor was then the Chancellor of the Exche of the Exchequer has, in my opinion. quer, maintained the income tax at 8d. shown himself to be a lax guardian of in the £, and the very first person the public purse. There is no occasion who protested against that was the on which I feel a greater distrust of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. If right honourable Gentlemen on both he turns to the Hansard Debates of the the Front Benches than when the ex15th April, 1886, he will find confirma- Chancellor of the Exchequer congratution of what I say. He will find in the lates the present Chancellor of the discussion upon the Budget of the right Exchequer, and the other way about. honourable Gentleman the Member for The present holder of that office told West Monmouthshire that one of the us that two years ago he preached a first observations of the present Chan- sermon of economy. His speech on that cellor of the Exchequer was an observa- occasion was seconded by the right tion of great regret that upon that honourable Gentleman the Member for Measure the House should be asked to West Monmouthshire, and the sermon sanction an income tax of 8d. in the was as barren of all consequences as £. Now, if he objected to the sermons usually are, but he says this income tax of 8d. in the £ year being pressed for increased expendiof 1886, he surely ought to have ture by Members of this House, and by taken advantage of the opportunities he his colleagues, he was unable to resist. has had during the last three years. He But is that a true statement of the might have chosen for reduction what case? Is that the proper way for him upon money. I will limit of myself to the grant paid to the local taxation fund, which began 10 years ago. In the year 1891 that grant amounted to five millions of money; between the years 1891 and 1892 it increased to seven and a half millions of money; between 1892 and 1896 it remained stationary; but since the right honourable Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into office it has risen by leaps and bounds, first to eight millions and a quarter, and then to nine millions and a half, at which it stands in the present year, and when the whole amount of the Irish Local Government Bill and the Scotch Local Government Bill has to be reckoned as well it will amount to 10 or 11 millions. I do think that the Chancellor of the Exche quer, in saddling the expenditure of the country permanently with a charge of this character, has hardly been a safe guardian of the public purse; although during the three years he has been in office he has not neglected to preach to us economy, there is no doubt, in my opinion, that he has sadly neglected to practise it. to put it to us, when we know perfectly millions himself false to his trust as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is the one barrier we have to put up against the rapacity of his colleagues, and when they press their demands, which must result in a heavy charge being placed upon the taxpayer, it is the Chancellor of the Exche quer who is bound to resist them. If *SIR J. FERGUSSON (ManchesGentle ter, N.E.): The honourable man who has just sat down has, to a large extent, answered himself, because, though he reproached the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not reducing the National Debt, he pointed out that the money had been expended in accordance with public demands, and that there was no surplus left with which to make any he does not resist them, he must take reduction. It is hardly necessary to say the responsibility of that expenditure that if the revenue, which, as he says, is upon his own shoulders. With regard to so large, is required for these purposes, what the right honourable Gentleman there is no other source from which the the Member for West Monmouthshire National Debt can be reduced. My said when he dealt with the large expen- honourable Friend at the end of his diture, which he characterised as pure speech, and I think it was the only wastefulness, I entirely agree; and I charge of extravagance he was able to desire to point out to the House that if bring against the Chancellor of the any Government have been neglectful in Exchequer, alluded to the large and this regard it is the present Government, growing sums devoted to local taxation. and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Now, I remember demands being made must be held to be responsible. in this House, and resolutions passed Now, it has been pointed out by the right demanding that relief should be honourable Gentleman the Member for given to local taxation, and it West Monmouth that the local taxa- only by the Consolidated Fund that tion grant comes to 12 or 13 that demand could be satisfied. Now Mr. Buchanan. Was I am concerned more especially to offer, if not objections, at all events an expres sion of doubt as to the wisdom of the financial scheme in another particular, and I hope I shall be able to state it without in any way transgressing or trespassing upon a subject not before the House. The prominent part of the Budget is the reduction of taxation upon a particular item, and I cannot help expressing my doubt as to whether it is wise to reduce taxation in such a direction. Since the Budget was framed, and since the right honourable Gentleman made his Budget speech, many things have happened, many things which may make us doubt whether it is not wise to keep a reserve in view of possible contingencies. To grant a reduction upon taxation which is easily borne and scarcely felt, but which, if foregone, is not easily replaced, may cause hereafter grave difficulty. I will not describe the Measure next on the Paper (the Reserves Bill); nobody would say it is the best expedient that can be found for the emergency, but we are told that any other expedient would cost too much money. Well, it is manifestly to the interests of this country that our military forces should be efficient, and if we deprive ourselves of the narrow margin we possess how can we supply the necessary funds for possible contingencies? If you look at our interests all over the world, where our rights may be challenged at any moment, there is no doubt it is most essential for the diplomatic force, upon which our supremacy rests, to be supported by material force. How can that material force be supplied if we deprive ourselves of the margin which is not now more than sufficient to meet the contingencies which may arise? It is hardly necessary to say that all the Government asked for is used for the protection of the country, but it is not showing any want of confidence in the Government if some of us ask that they would now reconsider some of the proposals which would seem to deprive them of the margin which they may possibly require. *MR. J. A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside): After the speech which has fallen from the honourable Gentleman are com on the other side of the House, I will not occupy more than a few moments, but I want to draw attention to the increase of the expenditure during the last few years, and accentuate what has already been said upon that subject. In my humble judgment, when we paring one year's expenditure with another, we ought to include ail the expenses of the country. Now we bave eliminated from many of our accounts the contributions to local taxation, and we have eliminated the cost of all the works in connection with capital items of expenditure, such as barracks, naval works, and Uganda Railway. If all these items were added together, I think the House would be astonished to find that whereas in 1895 the expenditure of the country was £101,000,000, it has now reached for the year ending March, In 1898, the sum of £117,639,000. other words, while the population has increased during that period, only 2.28 per cent., the expenditure, and conse quently the revenue, has increased something like 15 per cent. Now, I represent a constituency in which any expenditure on naval construction is very welcome, and my constituents are quite prepared from that point of view, but they are not to agree to any increase of expenditure satisfied that we are getting as a nation our money's worth in connection with this enormous expenditure which is now going on. I do not think that the Voluntary system, as it is called, really accounts for the difference between the enormous sums we pay, as compared with those paid by many foreign nations. If we look to the estimated expenditure for the year ending in March next, we find that nearly 107 millions will be the expenditure charged against revenue, and there will be, over and above the local taxation contribution of £9,500,000, I suppcze, the inevitable Supplementary Estimate, probably reaching to a million pounds more, that will have to be provided for within the current year. The right honourable Gentleman says that is provided for, but it was provided for in the year before, and yet we had Supplementary Estimates to the amount of £3,100,000, for which a margin was only allowed of £1,900,000. We shall then have a large sum for special items of capital expenditure under the Naval Defence Act, or other Acts. The estimated expenditure of 116 millions for the current year will therefore probably be exceeded by two or three millions, and I should not be surprised if we reached 120 millions for the total expenditure of the current year. I have spoken of extravagances in connection with the Army and Navy. I believe the money voted for these Services may be required at the present time, but I believe it is only required in consequence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in connection with Foreign affairs. Of course, it would not be in order for me to deal now with that matter in any detail, but it appears to us on this side of the House that the policy which has necessitated this large expenditure for the Army and Navy is not a resolute or straightforward policy, and it is wanting in that foresight which would tend to secure economy in the military and naval establishments. There is also extravagance in connection with doles and State grants in aid of Voluntary schools without any accompanying conditions to secure educational efficiency. There are two millions a year going to English landlords, and there is a further grant to Irish landlords in order to bribe them to accept the Irish Local Government Bill. That cannot be considered as anything else than a bribe, for it must be well known to honourable Gentlemen opposite that the Irish landlords would not have accepted the Local Government Bill unless they had received a contribution from the Exchequer. SIR R. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge): I beg leave to contradict that statement of the honourable Gen tleman. *MR. J. A. PEASE: I quite agree that the honourable Gentleman himself would have been prepared to accept the Local Government Bill without such a contribution, but I know that there are many Irish landlords who would not have been prepared to do so. These local taxation contributions and grants in aid are, in my opinion, financially unsound, and in that regard also I believe that the present Government ought to be blamed. The right honourable Gentleman who last addressed the House has justified those grants on the ground that incidence of taxation makes grants in aid necessary. I am Mr. J. A. Pease. one of those who believe that every individual in this country ought to contribute something directly to the revenue of the country, and I would like to see the teetotaller pay just as much as anyone else to the revenue of the country. I should like to have such a graduated system of taxation as would secure that everyone should contribute to taxation in proportion to his means. I know that that is an ideal very difficult to realise, but we are going in the right direction. So far, for example, as the reduction of the tobacco duty is concerned, I am in accordance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I believe that he will find that the revenue from tobacco will be increased, and that the relief he has afforded in that direction will in a year or two be made up to the Exchequer. Sir, I am obliged to the House for listening to these observations, and I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist these demands which are constantly made upon him for grants in aid for local purposes, because I believe they only promote extravagance and lead to waste of public money. *MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet): Sir, the honourable Member for the Tyneside Division has indulged in a lament over the extravagance of our expenditure, but I think he knows that owing to the fact that the great mass of voters pay little or no taxation, nothing is more popular with the electorate than bloated expenditure. Honourable Members are no doubt aware that economy in Imperial expenditure has become an obsolete cry. I remember that in my early Parliamentary days every Member addressing his constituents used to insist upon the necessity of economy, but it is not so now, and the conventional reference to the subject has even vanished, I believe, from Queen's Speeches of recent years, since the old relations between taxation and representation have been abandoned. I think it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean has made out an unanswerable case. It is no doubt a matter of opinion on which Members may differ, whether this country ought to adopt the principle of economy in expenditure so far as to keep down the demands for the Ser |