Committee on the Current Wage Clause a neutral; and, if so, whether he in Government contracts, having regard will reconsider the composition of this to the count-out on 24th March; and, if Commission, either by changing the so, when? alleged Irish selections or by adding others.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in accordance with the general feeling expressed in the House of Tuesday evening, will move for the Committee then asked for, and whether the reference to the Committee will be identical with the terms of the Resolution agreed to on Tuesday?

MR. R. ASCROFT (Oldham): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government, considering the strong feeling in the country on the question of the Current Wage Clause in Government contracts, will, with a view to allay such feeling, move as early as possible for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the question of the administration of the Fair Wages Resolution of February 1891.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government will appoint the Committee to deal with this question, as I have more than once assured the House. The terms of reference will substantially be the same as those of the Motion of Tuesday; but I do not pledge myself to a phrase or a word.

LICENSING LAWS COMMISSION.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: There are inaccuracies in the list which appears to have got into The Times. It is impossible for me to enter into a discussion as to the sources of information which the Government have · or may avail themselves of in dealing with this difficult question. The hon. Gentleman will understand that when a Commission dealing with such an important question is appointed, and when it is limited to a reasonable compass, it is almost impossible that there should not be gentlemen and even interests thinking that they are not adequately represented on the Commission. We have done our very best to represent all classes, and I trust that when the names are announced they will meet with general satisfaction.

MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think it unfair that The O'Conor Don, who had taken such strong action in the House against an important trade interest in Ireland, should be appointed to the Commission, seeing that the representation of Ireland then included two opponents and only one supporter of the trade?

MR. W. REDMOND: As the right hon. Gentleman says that the report in The Times is inaccurate, is he in a position to give to the House an accurate list of the Commissioners and the terms of reference?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid that I cannot MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kil-discuss any name on the Commission kenny): I beg to ask the First Lord of now, or even admit that any particular the Treasury, whether the list of names name is going to be submitted to the of persons selected to serve on the Royal Queen. Commission on the Licensing Laws, which appeared in The Times of the 25th instant, is correct; whether the names of the three Commissioners to represent Ireland were selected with the consent of any representatives of any organised Irish interest; and, if so, whether he has any objection to name the persons who, as representatives of Irish public opinion, sanctioned their selection; whether he can name the persons on whose recommendation The O'Conor Don, who carried the Irish Sunday Closing Bill through this House, was placed on the Royal Commission as a neutral; and, whether he is aware that the licensed trade organisation of Dublin have by resolution protested against the selection of The O'Conor Don as

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Not as yet; but I hope to be able to do so before Easter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.) asked the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the first Order on the Paper, the Naval Works Bill, taking some time, he would move to report progress upon it at a convenient hour, so that Members generally

might have an opportunity for hearing the statement of the Vice-President of the Council on the Education Bill.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am aware that Members on both sides of the House are very anxious to hear the statement of my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council, but at the same time it is absolutely necessary to get through the stage of the Naval Works Bill -the Bill has been too long delayed already-and I shall have to ask the House, if they will, to endeavour to get through the Committee stage this evening. I have no reason to believe that the discussion is likely to be prolonged to an hour which would make it generally inconvenient for my right hon. Friend to make his statement.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE asked whether it was intended that the first business to-morrow would be the Civil Service Estimates?

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: What I propose is to put down a few uncontroversial Army Votes, not very many, and as soon as they are finished I will immediately move to report progress, and take the Vote on Account. In any case, I am pledged to take the Vote on Account at seven o'clock.

"Such sum as is shown by the account certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General under section four of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, to be the surplus of income above expenditure for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March one thousand eight hundred and ninety. six shall, instead of being applied as provided by the above-mentioned Act, be set apart in the Exchequer account and applied by the Treasury, at such times as they direct, as follows:

(a) in paying off with interest any sum borrowed under the Naval Works Act, 1895;

(b) in repaying to the Consolidated Fund any sums issued in pursuance of the Naval Works Act, 1895, and not already repaid; (e) in paying any sums authorised by this or any future Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to this Act."

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University) moved to omit sub section C, which authorises the surplus of income above expenditure of the present finan

Presented and read 1a; to be read 2a cial year being applied, inter alia, "in upon Monday next.-[Bill 158.]

paying any sums authorised by this or any future Act to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of the works specified in the schedule to this Act." He was afraid that the subsection involved an interference with the Sinking Fund under which we had paid off 150 millions of debt during the last 25 years. He protested against interfering with the Sinking Fund. The matter, however, was one of some complexity, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give an Presented, and read 1a; to be read 2a explanation how the sub-section would upon Monday next.-[Bill 159.]

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE). Bill for the acquisition of a Site for Public Offices in Westminster, and for purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

Sir William Harcourt.

work.

Again, to apply the unforeseen surplus temporarily to those works and to reborrow our Treasury Bonds, would be to repeat what Mr. Pitt had attempted to maintain the Sinking

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn | apply the realised surplus to the formaRegis), who had an Amendment on the tion of permanent works primarily dePaper having very much the same signed for the security of the Empire? object, said, it seemed to him that this subsection proposed to take the realised surplus of this year, put it into a box, and then to give an unlimited authority to the Treasury to dispose of it as it Fund pleased in making these works. He while he increased the debt. That conceived that it was quite exceptional would be financial purism of the and irregular to give such unlimited highest degree. They recognised that authority; and that the proper way the Government had made out an ample was to give authority to expend a sum "not exceeding a specified amount. The three main objections to the subsection, therefore, were, first of all, the authority to expend the money was un-purpose than the one suggested. limited. It expended a large sum of money-£6,000,000 or £7,000,000-of RALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. which £3,000,000 were already taken, perhaps more. The sum was more than was required for the purpose of the Act, which only contemplated the expenditure, under this Bill, of £2,750,000; and, finally, this sub-section assumed to pass a future Act of Partliament.

MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) regretted extremely any attempt to do away with the present system of reducing the debt. It seemed to him that there was a great danger in making a change in what he thought was a fundamental principle of their finance. When there was to be a large expenditure on the Navy he believed that the public would not grudge it. One or two enthusiastic persons had written to The Times stating that they were willing to go on paying a larger income-tax if necessary to secure an efficient Navy. He was a great believer in this enthusiasm, but he thought that the real way to show it was by our paying now the cost of this expenditure. If the country wanted these ships and he agreed in the large addition to the Navy-surely the best proof of their earnestness was that they should now pay for them, and not make the reduction of the debt the means of paying. *SIR JAMES FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.) thought that the line of argument which had been pursued was scarcely in harmony with the general feeling of the public or of the majority of the House. No doubt it would be a great pity if the reduction of the debt was interfered with; but would it be desirable to increase taxation rather than

case for the institution of these works for the security of the Empire. We had a large realised surplus in hand, and it could not be applied to a more legitimate

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMI

George's, Hanover Square) thought that no one would be less inclined to diminish the ordinary methods of reducing the Debt than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if his right hon. Friend and himself had believed that what hon. Gentlemen had indicated would be the result, he thought that he might say they would not have been parties to any proposal of the kind. But the question which was presented to his right hon. Friend and himself was whether they should pay off the debt in present circumstances and borrow again the same amount the next day-whether they should go into the money market with a large surplus which would be realised this year, or whether the simpler and more businesslike proposal was to set aside this surplus instead of borrowing it, instead of paying off the debt with one hand and raising it by annuities with the other. The difficulty of purchasing Consols also operated with his right hon. Friend and himself. The hon. Member for North Islington said that the Government ought to proceed by taxation rather than by borrowing; but he asked the Committee to remember that they were so far within the sums with which they had to deal, and were acting upon a policy which was initiated by the late Government, and endorsed by the House-namely, for these works the Government should proceed by borrowing and not by taxation. The Government were not now starting afresh; they had before them £8,000,000 or more sanctioned by the House to be

borrowed by an Act of last year. The cluded in the annual fixed charge for amount was not sanctioned, but the debt, and the latter would be mainworks were sanctioned costing about that tained intact. A sum of £7,250,000, amount. This was a general defence being more than had ever been specifiwith regard to proceeding by loans in- cally allotted in a year to the payment stead of by taxation for these works. of debt, would be devoted to that As to the arguments of the right hon. purpose this The old Sinking year. Member for the University of London Fund consisted of casual and spasrelating to Sub-section c, he said that the modic receipts from surplus revenue beCommittee must distinguish between yond the expenditure of the year. There two sums-£2,750,000 to be authorised had not been before in their time so by this Bill, and any further amount large a surplus as the probable surplus which might remain over. The objec- of the present year, although it would tions of the hon. Member for King's not approach the amount which some Lynn applied to the latter. The hon. hon. Members anticipated. A surplus, Gentleman was too sanguine in the as the Committee were aware, might be figures he quoted. He was informed by applied to the reduction of the debt 12 the Chancellor of the Exchequer that months after the end of the financial year the sum which would remain over would in which it had accrued. If the surplus not amount to millions; indeed, they would scarcely be counted by hundreds of thousands; the sum would be less than a quarter of a million. Therefore, the figures in question were not large. The Government were not asking the House to anticipate any great expenditure.

to which the 4th Clause of the Bill referred were not applied as there proposed, it would remain for a year in the Treasury balances. The Government, if they were debarred from using it, would have to borrow, and 12 months hence when, to judge from present apMR. COURTNEY said, that the pearances, the Consol market might be effect of the clause, as he read it, would even higher than it was now, the surbe to interfere with the redemption of plus would have to be applied to the rethe permanent debt to which the money demption of Consols at a price higher proposed to be dealt with would be ap- perhaps than 110. It was not to the plied under the old law. The Govern-interest of the country that they should ment were proposing to stop the reduc- buy largely Consols at 110. It was, he tion of the permanent debt in order to avoid incurring a temporary debt. The First Lord of the Admiralty said that it would be absurd to apply this money to the reduction of the permanent debt on the one hand, and on the other to borrow an equivalent sum. That would, no doubt, be true if the two debts could be thought to have the same character, but as they could not, the absurdity disappeared.

SIR J. LUBBOCK feared that the credit of the country would be seriously damaged if it should be thought abroad that we could not make an arrangement of this kind without tampering with the arrangements for the reduction of the debt.

*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.) denied that the course which the Government proposed to take would weaken our credit in the estimation of foreign nations. He drew a very broad distinction between the old Sinking Fund and the Sinking Fund inFirst Lord of the Admiralty.

thought, fairer to their successors that the reduction of the permanent debt should be stopped to this extent, than that they should be charged with a large sum for the payment of these permanent works, some of which, at any rate, ought to have been constructed before. He protested strongly against the suggestion that by this process the Government were doing anything whatever to weaken the credit of the country in the eyes of the world.

*SIR W. HARCOURT said, that the distinction which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made between the old Sinking Fund-which was the realised surplus-and the new Sinking Fund was a sound one. There was no one, he thought in that House who had more persistently maintained the duty of reducing the debt than he had himself. He had fulfilled that duty even in very difficult circumstances, when, by disregarding it, he might have avoided many burdens on the revenue of the year. The realised surplus was really what might

be called an unexpected windfall, and there were exceptional circumstances in there had rarely accrued such a large this year, and they were dealing with sum as fell this year into the Ex- an exceptional surplus that had accrued, chequer under the realised surplus he had not felt it his duty to object to Of course the regular the provisions of this Bill. ["Hear,

of the year.

funds for the redemption of the debt hear!"] were the annuities in connection with MR. COURTNEY suspected that the new Sinking Fund, and these, many Members of the Committee thought happily, would amount to some that by this process they were saving the £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. Then country a deal of taxation. But what there came in this unexpected windfall would be the effect of this process even of several millions. Whilst he thought if carried out to the extent of £6,000,000 that the point which had been taken by of money? Instead of applying it to the the right hon. Member for Bodmin was redemption of the Permanent Debt, they a perfectly true one, the question was were going to prevent the creation of whether in what might, he hoped, be terminable annuities. If they applied called exceptional circumstances, an ex- it to the redemption of the Debt they ceptional surplus should be treated in would extinguish an annual charge of this manner. He himself was prepared £175,000; if they applied it to the to consent to it, really in the interest of matter of terminable annuities it would the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, be £225,000. The whole saving, therehear!"] They must, however, take care fore, embodied in this process was somethey did not make the country impatient thing like £50,000 or £60,000 a year, with the amount which was set aside in and it was for the purpose of that they any particular year or in any particular were going through a process that would generation for the redemption of the impress the popular mind with the idea debt, for if in any particular year they that they were granting £6,000,000 of made that sum too large they might be money and applying it to an emergent endangering the permanent provision for necessity, whereas they were diverting the redemption of the debt. ["Hear, it from one form of debt to prevent the hear"] He certainly hoped that no creation of another form. Government would ever consent to dealing with and diminishing the Permanent Fund in the form of annuities for the redemption of the debt. That Permanent Fund was really for this country what other countries had in the shape of а war chest. It was a fund by which they could raise in an emergency, without adding to the taxation, great sums of money for the necessities of war, and therefore he hoped there was nothing in this proposal which would tend to endanger that provision. He should also hope that in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances nothing would induce the Government to divert even the old Sinking Fund from the purpose to which it was by Statute applied. was necessary, in this Bill, to get Parliamentary authority for the dealing with the old Sinking Fund this year, and this year only. It left that general principle and the application of the old Sinking Fund, as well as the other Sinking Fund MR. W. REDMOND said, it seemed intact in the future. If the old Sinking to him an extraordinary thing they Fund of another year was to be dealt should be asked to deal with a surplus with, Parliamentary authority must be as to which they had no definite inobtained for that purpose, and because formation.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.) hoped the right hon. Member for London University would not be induced to withdraw the Amendment. His objection to Clause 4 was that he did not think the proposal to increase the Navy was treating the people in a straightforward manner. If the Government wanted the people to pay several millions more for the Navy this year let them have the courage to do it by the imposition of a tax at once instead of endeavouring to do it by a side wind, for the people in the end would have to bear extra taxation to pay for it. They were dealing with this surplus in a light and airy fashion, but he would like to ask It the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could tell them the amount of the surplus, and give them some explanation on the subject?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER No.