Everything in its turn. So far from this large Government expenditure relieving the food position it aggravates it. We have to import an enormous quantity of food every year or we starve. This year probably we shall have to import 80 per cent, of the bread we eat. Eighty loaves out of every 100 will have to come from abroad. That wheat that comes from the foreign far- mer will have to be paid for, and it can only be paid for with British goods. It is no use offering them Bradburys. This enormous taxation that you are putting on is actually crippling the manufacturer, who would be prepared in other events to export British goods to pay for the wheat which we must have. This taxation is a potent ingredient in the cost of every article. The Chancellor of the exchequer is a sleeping partner in every business. He is a sleeping partner for profits, but he is not a sharer of losses. Every business man has to make an estimate, and, of course, he must take taxation into account in running his business. If he cannot put the taxation on to the product then he will not produce. Taxation to-day is threatening to ruin industry. By this taxation the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not speak of him personally; I have very great respect for my right hon. Friend—is really hindering development. Every business man knows that if you want successfully to develop your business you must put part of your profits back into your business every year. It cannot be done to-day. The tax collector is too hard on them. The Government factor is usually sterile in production. There is hardly a single man or woman engaged by the Government, paid by the Government, who is producing a single article that can be exchanged for the wheat which we must have. Therefore, I ask for a stringent reduction of expenditure. When I advocate a reduction it is not to spare the pockets of the rich, but really it is to prevent the poor from hunger. It is a working man's question, for if capital is not available employment cannot be obtained.

Do not let the House disguise from themselves that there will be great difficulties in effecting economy. The Government will require all the support that the House can give them. The Government officials are in their dug outs, and they are not coming out easily. It will require a great deal of high explosives to get them out. I hope we shall apply some of that this evening. I hope I am not infringing the Official Secrets Act when I say that I remember the time when we were pressed to reduce expenditure at the Admiralty. I remember Mr. Runciman and Mr. McKenna coming over to the Board and they proceeded to go into figures. They had not been there five minutes before they got mountains of figures, under which they were practically smothered. The Prime Minister is a much more astute diplomatist. He came over to the Admiralty and addressed the Board. He said, "Will you be good enough to reduce your expenditure; you alone can do it." We did it. The House of Commons cannot reduce the expenditure. It must be done by the Departments themselves. It can only be done in the Departments by rationing them and telling them how much they can spend. A good deal of criticism has been levelled at the figure in my Motion. It is not my figure. We have had several figures of expenditure. The first was given by the present Leader of the House at £650,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in April, 1919, estimated the expenditure at £766,000,000 for a normal Budget. In October the figure which I have taken a year after the Armistice was estimated at £808,000,000. Last June he made another estimate of £1,029,000,000. The unfortunate part of these estimates is that they are always rising. I have taken the middle one. What does £808,000,000 mean? Debt reduction and interest will cost £360,000,000, pensions another £120,000,000, making £480,000,000. That leaves £328,000,000 for running the country, which cost before the War just under £200,000,000. The £200,000,000 included the debt, therefore that is all to my advantage. Here you have the debt and pensions paid for and you are left with £328,000,000 with which to run the country, whereas before the War it cost less than £200,000,000, including provision for debt reduction and interest.

I have a letter here, a very able letter indeed, from Mr. Edgar Crammond, who wrote to the "Times" on 13th November. He said: I am convinced that this country cannot afford to spend more than £800,000,000 on Imperial services in the coming year, and every possible effort should be made during the next five months to compel the Government to recognise this fact. That is the opinion of a distinguished economist. Let me take the latest Estimate of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, £1,025,000,000. Does he think that the taxation he imposed this year will bring in so much revenue in future years as he has estimated for this year? I think it is quite impossible. Let me give the House some figures. In 1913–14 Customs and Excise, that is, the taxation of beer, spirits, and cigars, brought in £75,000,000. This year the Chancellor expects to get from it £350,000,000. Does he really believe that when the taxation is five times heavier he is likely to get that revenue during the lean years that must come? Take Income Tax, Death Duties, and Corporations Tax. Before the War there was, of course, no Corporations Tax. From Inland Revenue, before the War, that is, Income Tax and Death Duties, there was received £88,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates the receipt this year of £590,000,000. In other words, from the two sources I have named, the revenue before the War was £163,000,000, and today the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to get £940,000,000. I do not believe it is possible. Hon. Members say to me, "But suppose there is an emergency?" I reply, "Yes, suppose there is an emergency and that you have spent up to the hilt in the time of peace?" I am not a pessimist. I believe that Englishmen never do better than when they have to face facts. I believe that £808,000,000 is all that the country can afford. My object in moving the Motion is to show that the House of Commons must not nibble at a reduction of expenditure by thousands or hundreds of thousands; the expenditure must come off in chunks of tens of millions; and it is because I think we must set some limit to the expenditure of the Government and the Departments that I bring my Motion forward.