Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/95

 1399.] Labourers' Dwellings Bill. [87

in 1859 — scorned to resort to such a measure. With more similar strong language Sir Wm. Harcourt denounced the Budget, whilst suggesting no alternative plan by which revenue could be raised or expenditure reduced ; he nevertheless left a general impression that Sir M. Hicks-Beach's qualifications as Chancellor of the Exchequer were yet to be discovered. If," however, to dissatisfy everybody, even your own partisans, were a test of statesmanship Sir M. Hicks-Beach had succeeded to a degree hardly achieved since Mr. Robert Lowe. In his case, however, sensible relief had been given to the taxpayers, of which in the present case, except to Sir M. Hicks-Beach's Bristol constituents and the landed proprietors, no evidence was forthcoming. In the course of his reply to the various strictures upon his proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the strange position that the new duties were not at all likely to injure the wine trade of our colonies, or to provoke retaliatory measures from foreign countries. From both posi- tions he was subsequently forced to retreat.

Further discussion of the proposals of the Government was adjourned until the Finance Bill founded thereon was brought forward. In the interval it was found convenient to take up (April 17) the discussion of the Small Houses (Acquisi- tion of Ownership) Bill which had provoked the opposition of a section of the Radicals on its first introduction. Mr. M'Kenna (Monmouthshire, N.) again took the lead with an amendment claiming that the freehold of such acquired houses should vest in the local authorities or public bodies, and also to postpone the whole subject until the Local Taxation Committee had made its report. Among those who spoke against the bill from the Opposition benches — for widely different reasons — were Sir Joseph Pease (Barnard Castle, Durham), Mr. Alexander Ure (Linlithgowshire) and Mr. John Burns (Battersea). In the opinion of Mr. Asquith the operation of the bill would be so restricted that it was hardly worth while putting it on the Statute Book. In any case it would only effect that minority of the working classes who were assured of the fixity of their employment ; and for them building societies and loan societies were already doing all that the bill would do. He should not however vote against the second reading. On the Ministerial side of the House, Mr. Leighton (Oswestry, Shropshire), Mr. Kimber (Wandsworth), and Sir Blundell Maple (Dulwich) ex- pressed their intention to abstain from voting. The principal speech in support of the bill was delivered by Mr. Chamberlain, who justified the limitation of its scope on the ground that it was necessary to deal with some great social questions step by step. He denied that any heavy burden would be thrown on the rates, seeing that the local authorities would not be required to advance money under the act except on good security. He could not admit that as a rule workmen moved about too much in search of labour to care for a fixed residence, and hinted that