The House adjourned early in view of the King's Birthday dinners, and next day (June 23) Mr. Hayes Fisher (U., _Fulham_) moved an amendment expressing regret that the promised grants to local authorities were not to be made in the current year, and condemning the new system of valuation by which these grants were to be conditioned. He agreed with the views of the dissentient Ministerialists about the Bill (p. 128) and suggested that money might be found by taxing imports; the Port of London Authority already charged dues on 2,200 articles. Would the Chancellor repeat his Ipswich speech now? He strongly protested against central control of valuation. Mr. Cassel (U.) seconded the resolution. Among later speakers, the Secretary for Scotland said that the only difference to the local authorities would be that they would not receive the four months' grants during the current year. Mr. Healy (I. N.) attacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the bases on which the grants were allotted to Ireland. Mr. G. Roberts (Lab., _Norwich_) said his party profoundly regretted the capitulation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The President of the Board of Education said that there was no danger of the abolition of free education. Next day (June 24) Mr. J. F. Hope (U., _Sheffield, Central_), in a speech characterised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as fresh and interesting, suggested that 200,000_l._ a year might be saved on payment of members, and the Development Commission and the Road Board might be abolished. The Estimates should be sent to a special Committee for scrutiny. He favoured higher import duties on foreign luxuries and a graduated tax on amusements. He feared for local freedom and knowledge in administration. After other speeches, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied. He said that nothing had been said about the taxes; reduction of expenditure had been suggested on armaments, but it had no support, at any rate from the Opposition, and on the Development Commission and Road Board, but nearly all the expenditure on the former had gone to agriculture, and the primacy of Great Britain in roads was due to the tax on motor petrol. The Opposition had constantly pressed the Government to spend millions to relieve the ratepayers; when this was attempted, they tried to wreck the Bill. The industrial districts were strangled with rates due to absolute necessities, such as education; the projected readjustment of the grants would save some of those hardest pressed between 1_s._ and 2_s._ in the pound. Housing, which had been so often pressed, could not be undertaken unless the rates were relieved, and yet members rummaged in the dustbins of ancient precedents for obstacles to the Budget proposals. The truth was, the Opposition wanted to obstruct, for they had rather do the job themselves. Interference with local authorities had a precedent in the case of education and the existing valuation by overseers was a farce. The separation of improvement values from site values was regarded as insane, but it worked well in British Columbia. When the Colonies proposed to tax corn they were our kith and kin; when they taxed land they were lunatics. The abolition of the sugar tax had been suggested, but the penny was wanted, and abolition would mean an increase next year on the income tax. Those who voted against the Bill would be voting against means to increase the efficiency of the people and make a stronger and more enduring State.