Commons Sitting of 26 March 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bude Gas Bill (Prince of Wales' Consent signified). Bill read the third time, and passed.
Falmouth Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Private Bills, etc. Ordered, That Standing Orders 39, 128, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions and Memorials against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of certain lands in the parish of Keadby, in the county of Lincoln (parts of Lindsey),"presented by Sir Edward Strachey; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of the Oulton, Carlton, etc., Marshes, in the parishes of Oulton, Carlton Colville, and Barnby, in the county of Suffolk," presented by Sir Edward Strachey; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of

1621
Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 141.)
Worthing Gas Bill; Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply Bill; Keswick Urban District Council (Water) Bill; Reported with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Rights of Way (Scotland) Bill. Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday, 10th April, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Amman Valley; Ashton's Green; Bedwellty; Blaenavon; Bond's Main; Caeglas; Carway; Cawdor; Coedmoeth; Cross Hands; Cwm Veg; Daldowie; Emlyn Lodge; Gelly Ceidrim; Glangarnant; Grorseygarnant; Great Mountain; Hartshead; Maesmarchog; North Blaina; Pantyffynnon; Park; Pochin (No. 2); Rhos; Rock Lodge; Waterloo; White Rose; and, Whitwick Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Edinburgh; and Stone house; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Findochty; and, Orkney; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 1st March, 1907, approving a Memorial of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty praying, (1) that they may be empowered to award at their discretion to the Commanders-in-Chief at the three home ports such rate of commuted allowance in lieu of servants, within a maximum of £500 a year, as the circumstances of each case may
  1622
  require; (2) for sanction to certain modifications in the existing system of clothing and bedding gratuities to petty officers, seamen, and boys; (3) for sanction to the payment of the allowance of 2d. a day, now paid to Royal Marines when employed as tailors, to any rating when so employed [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  COURT OF PROBATE DIVISION (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE) (IRELAND).
  Annual Account presented, of Receipts and Disbursements for the year ended 31st December, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOBBINITE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee on Bobbinite; Report and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MEDICAL COUNCIL.
  Accounts presented, for 1906, of the General Medical Council and Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 11, 1907).
  Copy presented, of Accessions of British Colonies, etc., to various Treaty Engagements between the United Kingdom and Foreign Powers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (AGRICULTURAL LAND).
  Return ordered, "showing the acreage, situation, tenancy, and rent of the Agricultural Land, with or without buildings, belonging to charities comprised in the Report to the Charity Commissioners, completed in 1905, of inquiries held in respect of every parish wholly or partly within the administrative county of London, except Charities for educational or religious purposes."—(Sir William Collins.)
  EAST INDIA (PUNJAB) (INQUIRY INTO DEATHS FROM TETANUS).
  Address for "Return of Papers containing the results of an Inquiry into the origin of certain Deaths from Tetanus in the Punjab, consequent on the employment of Dr. Haffkine's prophylactic against plague."—(Sir William Collins.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Prime Minister if he can state the number of magistrates appointed since 1st February, 1906, and how many were appointed in the preceding five years.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The number of magistrates appointed since 1st February, 1906, in Great Britain is 3,213. The number of magistrates appointed in the preceding five years was 6,032.

  Prosecution of Philip Stokes for Intimidation at Killenaule.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that a man, named Philip Stokes, was charged at Killenaule Petty Sessions, in the county of Tipperary, at the suit of the Crown, with having, at Ballingarry on the 24th December and on other occasions, used intimidation towards Thomas Bradley, on account of his working for a person, named Butler, who grabbed the farm from which Stokes was evicted, and was bound to the peace for twelve months or in default to go to gaol for one month, which alternative the defendant chose; and whether having regard to the fact that the magistrates would not allow the defendant or his witness, Mr. Dalton, to give evidence for the defence, he proposes to take any, and if any, what, action in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) This is not a matter in which I have any authority or jurisdiction to interfere. The action of the magistrates in refusing to hear evidence for the defence was, I believe, technically correct, following the decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of Halpin (Appellant), Rice (respondent) (1901), 2 Ir. R., 593.

  Inquiry into Indian Railway System.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in connection with the answer given by him to the Indian railway deputation on 12th March, when he intends to institute the departmental inquiry into the working of the financial system; what
  1624
  will be the scope of the inquiry; and what will be the constitution of the body to which it will be entrusted.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any public statement about it.

  Newspaper Postage Rates.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that The Lady newspaper can be sent by post for ½d, whilst the carriage of a parcel of newspapers of the same weight is 4d., he can consider the question of reducing the cost in the latter case, and so remove the difficulty of the supply and distribution of newspapers in thinly populated districts.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Under the Act of 1870 The Lady, as a registered newspaper, can be sent by post for ½d. in the United Kingdom irrespective of its weight. The postage upon a parcel of newspapers not exceeding two pounds in weight is not necessarily 4d. If the papers contained in the parcel are registered newspapers the total postage upon it would be ½d. for each one enclosed, unless the charge by weight were cheaper. Inasmuch as the statutory newspaper involves the Post Office in a considerable loss of revenue, I do not see my way to reducing the postage upon newspapers as the hon. Member suggests.

  Charge for Post Office Hampers at Innellan Pier.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Postmaster-General why the payment by the Post Office for parcel hampers passing over Innellan pier has been stopped, seeing that such payments continue to be made at Clyde piers having similar Provisional Orders; and whether he will cause payment to be resumed in the case of Innellan.
  (Answered by Mr Sydney Buxton.) I will have inquiry made on this point, and will send the hon. Member an answer.

  Vacancy for Overseer at Brighton Post Office.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a vacancy has existed among

  1625
  overseers in the telegraph department at Brighton since June last; and whether in view of the stagnation of promotion, he will direct that the post be filled.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The promotion has now been made; the delay, which I regret, was due to various causes.

  Money-lending Practices.
  MR LEA: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the assistant judge of the Lord Mayor's Court in regard to the scandal arising out of money-lending transactions with city clerks; and whether there is any possibility of the Moneylenders Act, 1900, being amended so that a judge can, at any stage of proceedings before him, reopen the transaction.
  (Answered by Sir Lawson Walton.) The Amendment required appears to be in the direction of an alternation of county court procedure which will obviate the difficulty which has been experienced in the application of the Act. My hon. friend will do well to refer the subject to the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

  Territorial Army—Appointment of Divisional Generals.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if any of the divisional Generals to be appointed in connection with the territorial forces will receive their appointments before the end of 1907–8, in order to begin the work of organising the new Army.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War how many divisional Generals will be appointed in connection with the territorial forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is impossible to say at present whether matters will be sufficiently advanced during the course of the financial year 1907–8 to permit of the appointment of any of the divisional Generals. It is proposed that the number of divisional Generals shall be ultimately fourteen.

  Ammunition for Cadet Corps.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total sum voted under all heads of the Army
  1626
  Estimates for cadet corps during 1906–7; and what is the total amount to be voted for 1907–8.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No amounts are estimated for cadet corps as such, the only direct expenditure involved being that for ammunition. The cost of the ammunition may be roughly estimated at about £3,000.

  Claims of Messrs. Fowler and Company against the Spanish Government.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the fact that Messrs. Fowler and Company, British subjects, of Cienfuegos, Cuba, have claims against the Spanish Government for large amounts arising from damage to their Cuban property caused by Spanish troops; and whether, seeing that these claims were filed with the British Consul-General at Havana as far back as November, 1897, he will take steps to induce the Spanish Government to deal with the matter without further delay.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) I am fully cognisant of the claim referred to, which was presented to the Spanish Government by His Majesty's Embassy at Madrid so far back as January, 1898. The long delay which has occurred in the settlement of the claim is much regretted by His Majesty's Government, who have not failed, however, to make use of every opportunity of pressing for its payment. I understand it is the case that all Colonial claims against the Spanish Government, those of Spanish subjects as well as of foreigners, have been subjected to a similar delay to that inflicted on Messrs. Fowler, and an early settlement seems unfortunately improbable, as, according to law dated 30th July, 1904, no money can be paid until an Inter-Departmental Committee, which is still engaged on its labours, has examined and reported upon all the claims which have been brought forward.

  Death of Ellen Simpson.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Ellen Simpson, who was shown at the inquest held as to her death at Stepney, on the 16th March last, to have died from heart

  1627
  failure accelerated by want; and, if so, whether any relieving officer or other officer of the Stepney Guardians was present at the inquest; and at what date would particulars of this inquest be sent to the Local Government Board by the Home Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I understand that deceased and her sister had been refused outdoor relief, and that they declined to go into the workhouse. They appear to have been unable to look after themselves. No relieving officer was examined at the inquest; the woman had been in the district only a few days, and no relieving officer unfortunately knew anything of the case. Particulars of deaths from starvation or deaths accelerated by privation in 1907 will be furnished about March next, and sent to the Local Government Board. I am bringing the case to the notice of the Local Government Board.

  Cost of Poplar (Hutton) Schools.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the 33rd Annual Report of the Local Government Board on page 477 gives the cost to date of the Poplar (Hutton) schools at £144,725, and seeing that he stated in Parliament last year that the cost had been greatly added to for that year, he can state why no reference is made to the expenditure in the 34th Report of the Local Government Board, and why there is no reference to the further cost of these schools in the 35th Report of the Local Government Board.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The particulars on page 477 of the 33rd Annual Report of the Board did not give the cost to date of the schools. What the table containing these particulars does show is (as appears from the heading at the commencement of it) the amount of the expenditure authorised during the year 1903. The statement made by me in Parliament last year, which is referred to in the Question, is, I presume, the Answer I gave to a Question by the hon. Member on 25th June last.† If so, I would point out that I did not state that the cost had been greatly added to for that year. I gave the total sum which
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 620.
  1628
  had then been sanctioned in respect of the provision of the schools, viz. £156,545. Of this amount the sum of £11,820 was sanctioned in 1900, and £144,725 in 1903. As nothing was sanctioned in respect of the schools in 1904 or 1905 no reference was made to the cost of them in the Reports for those years.

  Carriage of Australian and New Zealand Mails.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Postmaster-General if the British Post Office makes any fixed contribution in respect of New Zealand and Australian mails carried between San Francisco and Auckland and Sydney by the Oceanic Steamship Company (Spreckel's line), or if the carriage is simply paid on poundage rates; if he is aware whether the system is also pursued by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand; and if it would be more economical, more expeditious, and more advantageous to send these mails viâ Vancouver instead of viâ San Francisco.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Payment for the conveyance of British mails from San Francisco to Auckland and Sydney is made by the British Post Office to the United States Post Office at the usual Postal Union transit rates. I understand that, under the recently-terminated contract between the Oceanic Steamship Company and the New Zealand Post Office, payment was made to the company for mails conveyed from Auckland to San Francisco at poundage rates, but subject to a fixed minimum and maximum in each year. I have reason to believe that the Australian Post Office also pays the company at poundage rates. The Answer to the last part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

  Elections of Parish Councillors.
  MR.: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to numerous complaints of the rushing of meetings by the chairmen and of intimidation of villagers during the recent parish council elections; and whether, in order to secure a true expression of local opinion on such occasions, he will introduce some simple method of balloting to be compulsorily adopted at all such meetings, in lieu of the method of a show of hands.

  1629
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received some complaints as to irregularities at the recent parish council elections, bun they have been very few. The Local Government Act, 1894, requires that the election of parish councillors shall be at a parish meeting or at a poll consequent thereon, and there is a good deal of difficulty in arranging that the voting at an election at a parish meeting shall be by ballot. I will, however, take note of the suggestion of my hon. friend.

  Abatements of Pay Consequent on Granting Civil Service Certificates to Temporary Clerks
  MR.: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that while Civil Service certificates have been either granted or promised to certain of the temporary civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey the quid pro quo demanded by the Treasury in abatement of pay is to date from 28th November, 1906; and that this abatement is to be paid up in bulk by the 31st March; and whether he will arrange that the abatement should date from the granting of the Civil Service certificates.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The date fixed for the commencement of the abatements from the pay of those civil assistants who are placed on the establishment is that of the Treasury letter sanctioning the grant of pensions; and I am not prepared to vary it.

  British Sea Fisheries Inquiry.
  MR. HELME: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed to inquire into and advise the Government as to scientific research and the sea fisheries will be made sufficiently wide to include, not only a Report on the North Sea fisheries investigations, but also other researches which have been carried out on the British coasts.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes, Sir.

  Legal Assistance for Irish Poor Law Guardians at Local Government Board Inquiries.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
  1630
  tenant of Ireland whether when an inquiry is held into any charges which may be made against Poor Law officials in Ireland, an allowance is made by Government to defray the costs of employing the necessary legal assistance by the official concerned, even if the charge be proved to be absolutely unfounded; and, if not, whether he will take steps to amend the law in this respect.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative. I am not aware of any reason why the Government should pay the costs referred to.

  Irish Land Purchase—Copies of Maps.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when maps in connection with the sale of an estate are lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and the owner in the course of the sale requires to inspect them, the Commissioners will not return them or allow tracings to be taken by the solicitors for the owner, but charge £4 or £5 for supplying tracings; is not such charge contrary to Rule 45 of the Land Commission Rules of October, 1903; and whether he will suggest that greater facilities for the return or inspection of maps pending sale should be afforded.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they cannot allow original maps to be taken out of the office after the property to which they relate has been inspected and the maps certified by their staff. Prior to such inspection, maps are continually allowed to be taken out. Every facility is given to solicitors who wish to take tracings, and no such charge as that mentioned in the Question has been made for supplying tracings. If solicitors require copies of the estate maps, they are supplied at the customary rates. The supplying of such copies does not come within the meaning of Rule 45 referred to.

  Purchase of Untenanted Land of the Blacker Douglas Estate, North Kerry
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware

  1631
  that about 400 acres of untenanted land on the Blacker Douglas property, near Asdee, North Kerry, has been offered to the Estates Commissioners for the reinstatement of evicted tenants and the giving of plots of land to labourers; whether this land has been inspected and reported on; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have not yet had this estate inspected. The maps of the property have had to be returned to the owner for amendment. A survey will next have to be made, and, after that, the inspection. These stages will take some months to complete.

  Flooding of Tenants' Holdings at Lixnaw North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what action the Estates Commissioners have taken in connection with the tenants' holdings at Lixnaw, on Lord Listowel's estate, North Kerry, which are subject to floods; and whether, before the sale is sanctioned, the Estates Commissioners will see that the tenants are adequately safeguarded.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are at present considering the question of retaining, out of the purchase money of this estate, a sum with the object of providing assistance in the maintenance of the waterways, embankments, and sluices in the district.

  Housing of Working Classes Act at Roscrea.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why the Local Government Board prevented the Roscrea Rural District Council from putting into operation in the town the provisions of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, although the people of the town requested the district council to do so; and if he can say what powers rural district councils have under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received no application from the Roscrea Rural District Council for carrying out a housing scheme under The Housing of
  1632
  the Working Classes Act, 1890. Rural district councils can only exercise the powers under Part II. of the Act which relates primarily to the closing and demolition of buildings unfit for human habitation and to the removal of obstructive buildings.

  Appointment of Warrant Officers in the Army Ordnance Corps.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the practice of appointing non-commissioned officers from other branches of the service to be warrant officers of the Army Ordnance Corps, though there are in the Army Ordnance Corps plenty of qualified men; in how many instances in the past ten years have such appointments been made; and will he take steps to secure to the men of the Army Ordnance Corps the preferential right to promotions in their own corps over outsiders.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This practice was adopted in 1896 on the recommendation of a Committee, and the appointments were divided equally between the non-commissioned officers of the Army Ordnance Corps and those of the rest of the Army. In 1904, owing to the increase of non-commissioned officers in the Army Ordnance Corps, it was decided to give them appointments in the proportion of four to three given to the other non-commissioned officers. Eighty-two outside appointments have been made in the past ten years out of a total of 170. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the present system.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Medical Treatment for Sailors.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the notice published and displayed at recruiting stations by the Admiralty informs intending naval recruits that medicines and hospital treatment, both at home and abroad, are provided at the Government expense; whether he is aware that Article 1420 of the King's Regulations exacts stoppages of from 4d. to 10 d. per day from the full pay of all men and boys

  1633
  checked sick for over 30 days from ships at home, or invalided home from ships abroad; whether these stoppages from sick men's pay are in fact made; and, if so, whether he can explain the grounds upon which the terms of the recruiting notice in question are held to be justified.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert,: As a matter of fact medicines and free treatment for thirty days in hospital are given. The pamphlet issued also for recruiting purposes states this with clearness. Steps will be taken to amend the notice referred to, which is a general statement only, so as to prevent misapprehension.

  Invalided Consumptive Soldiers.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that only some 6 per cent. of soldiers discharged from the Army last year suffering from tubercle of the lung were sent to hospitals or sanitoria, while more than 70 per cent. were sent direct to their homes, he can take steps to ensure that a larger proportion shall in future be sent to institutions where they can receive proper treatment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. Haldane,: The disposal of soldiers invalided with tubercle of the lung is a matter involving several difficult considerations, and I propose to institute a small Committee to advise as to what steps it may be practicable to take in the direction indicated by the Question. I hope my hon. and gallant friend will give his services to this Committee.

  War Office Forage Contracts.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the quantity of hay and straw bought by the War Office in any given year, say 1906; the average cost per ton; and what proportion of the total quantities was imported.
  MR. HALDANE: The information required by the first and second parts of the Question could only be obtained by calling for Returns from all stations at home where Army horses are foraged.
  1634
  As regards the last part of this Question, the contracts do not contain any specification as to sources of supply, and therefore no definite information could be obtained.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Does the contract contain no provision that the forage shall be home grown?
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir.

  Presbyterians and the Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment.
  MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is prepared to alter the regulations of the Ecclesiastical Establishment in India so that he may consider nominations for the present and future vacancies as Presbyterian chaplains from ministers and licentiates of Presbyterian churches other than the Established Church of Scotland.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Hobhouse,): The establishment of Chaplains in India, which is regulated by 3 and 4 Will. IV., ch. 85, sec. 102, has always consisted of Chaplains of the Church of England and of the Church of Scotland, and the statute specifies the qualifications to be possessed by the latter, and the manner in which they shall be appointed. In these circumstances the Secretary of State is advised that it is doubtful whether the regulations can legally be altered so as to provide for the nomination of ministers not belonging to the Church of Scotland, and he is not prepared to take any action of the nature suggested.

  Volunteer Reserves in British Protectorates.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any encouragement is given by the Government to British Colonists joining Volunteer Reserves in British Protectorates in Africa; and, if not, whether the Government will consider the advisability of making grants out of the revenues of individual Protectorates for this purpose.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. Harcourt,for Mr. Churchill):In all the British Protectorates in Africa,

  1635
  except Somaliland, where local conditions do not lend themselves to such an arrangement, grants are made in support of volunteer Corps, and every encouragement is given to such Corps.

  Steamship Communication with East Africa.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the British Possessions of British Central Africa and North Eastern Rhodesia are dependent upon the steamer service of the Deutsche Ost Afrika Line, which is raising its rates as each British company successively withdraws from the sea-borne trade at Chinde; and whether the Government will take any action to counteract the effect of the subsidy enjoyed by the above-mentioned German line.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Secretary of State's information does not show that the possessions referred to are entirely dependent on the German Line; but I may say that the subject of steam communication with East Africa is at present engaging particular attention.
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have good grounds for saying that no English Line now calls regularly at Chinde, and can give him my reasons for saying so?
  MR. HARCOURT: The Colonial Office will be glad of any information my hon. friend can supply.

  Cape Breton Immigrants in Canada.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at the Collieries of Cape Breton British immigrants recently arrived in Canada are seeking employment without success; and, seeing that they assert that they have been misled by British agents in this country, will he order some inquiry to be made on the subject.
  MR. HARCOURT: There is no official information on the subject, but inquiries will be made.

  New Hebridean Natives.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office
  1636
  is in possession of any Reports on the physical condition of the natives of the New Hebrides; whether they are, like the natives of all the other tropical Pacific Islands, a delicate people unaccustomed to and incapable of continuous work; whether they are fitted for arduous work in the mines of New Caledonia or in the sugar fields of Fiji; and whether they are likely to die off rapidly if compelled under indentures to work for ten or twelve hours a day.
  MR. HARCOURT: Natives of the New Hebrides under indentures do not work in mines in any place under British authority. His Majesty's Government have not and never have had any responsibility for or power to control foreign recruiting in the New Hebrides for other places. The Secretary of State is not aware of any special reports on the physical condition of natives of the New Hebrides; but the last available mortality returns of Polynesian Islanders recently working in the sugar districts of Queensland and in Fiji point to no unfitness for field-work such as the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. FELL: Does the return apply to women and children?
  MR. HARCOURT: It applies generally, I believe, to the islanders.

  Fiji Sugar Cane Industry.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any report on the health of the natives employed on the sugar-cane fields of Fiji.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Secretary of State has not received any special report upon the health of the natives employed in the sugar fields of Fiji, but he receives periodical reports on the health of the natives generally, and the hon. Member can see the latest of these reports if he cares to call at the Colonial Office.

  New Caledonian Mines.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can supply any particulars of the mines in New Caledonia where the natives from the New Hebrides are to be engaged to work, whether they are gold, or silver, or what metal, and whether

  1637
  they are worked by underground or by open workings; and what is the annual death rate among the workmen employed in them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Such information as we possess respecting New Caledonia is contained in the Consular Report No. 3548, issued last year. The question of whether natives of the New Hebrides are to be engaged for work in New Caledonia, and the conditions under which, if engaged, they will work there is not one which should be addressed to His Majesty's Government or as to which they can reply. I may add further that the French authorities have hitherto possessed an unrestricted right of obtaining labour from the New Hebrides for New Caledonia, and that, though they are now bound by certain regulations, they retain jurisdiction over French citizens in the New Hebrides, as we do over British subjects.

  Transvaal Ministers' Salaries.
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the salary to be paid to General Botha, as Prime Minister of the Transvaal Colony; how does the salary compare with the salary, if any, received by Dr. Jameson, as Prime Minister of Cape Colony; and will he also state the salaries received by the Prime Ministers of Natal, the Dominion of Canada, the Australian Commonwealth, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, West Australia, South Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania.
  MR. HARCOURT: I have no official information on the subject. Dr. Jameson, I understand, does not draw any salary, The following appear to be the figures in other cases: —Natal £1,364, Canada $12,000 Commonwealth of Australia £2,100, Queensland £1,300, Victoria £1,400, New South Wales £1,570, Western Australia £1,200, South Australia £1,000, New Zealand £1,600, Tasmania £950.
  MR. LIDDELLasked whether it was not the fact that General Botha was receiving a salary of £4,000 a year, and each of his Ministers £3,000.
  MR. HARCOURT: The Colonial Secretary has no official information as to the salary that General Botha is receiving.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Does Dr. Jameson get any remuneration from the Limited Liability Companies?

  Australia and the Western Pacific.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the matters connected with the Western Pacific, other than the New Hebrides Convention, in connection with which the representations were made by the Commonwealth Government to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which are alluded to in two despatches in Cd. 3288.
  MR. HARCOURT: The matters other than the New Hebrides to which reference was made in the Secretary of State's despatch of the 20th April, 1906, were the question of the transportation of convicts to New Caledonia, and the claim of Messrs. Burns, Philp, and Co. against the German Government.

  Railway Extension in Northern Nigeria
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any instructions have been given to Sir Percy Girouard as to reporting on railway extensions in Northern Nigeria; and, if so, whether he has been instructed to report at the same time on the present ownership of the land along the proposed line of railway, and as to proposals for securing for this country or the Colony any increased value of the land within five miles of the proposed railway track.
  MR. HARCOURT: Sir Percy Girouard has been instructed to report on the subject of railway construction in Northern Nigeria. No specific instructions have been given to him to report on the present ownership of the land through which railways may pass, but it is thought that under the laws already in force in Northern Nigeria the necessary facilities exist for securing for the Government the increased value of any land within a reasonable distance of a railway. His attention will, however, be called specially to the point.
  MR. WEDGWOODasked whether, seeing that the course of the railway was more or less known, the Colonial Office would take any steps to prevent land speculation pending the actual arrangements made for testing the increased value of the land.
  MR. HARCOURT: I will see that the hon. Member's wishes are represented to the Secretary for the Colonies.

  Turco-Persian Frontier Commission.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Commissioners for the rectification of the Turco-Persian frontier arrived in Mosul on 5th July last, and at once proceeded to Passovah to meet the Persian Commissioners; whether any result has yet been reached; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government, in pursuance of the policy followed in this question since 1843, will now endeavour, in conjunction with the Russian Government, to bring about a speedy settlement of the dispute.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Joint Commission which met at Mosul in July last was not productive of any definite results. A fresh commission has, however, recently met at Mosul. His Majesty's Government have not yet received any reports as to its proceedings, and I cannot add anything to my previous Answer.

  Macedonian Budget—Charges for Turkish Troops
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the British financial delegate on the Macedonian Reform Commission the number of Turkish troops charged to the Macedonian Budget during 1906; and whether any extra expenditure in connection with the contemplated reorganisation of the 3rd Army Corpsat Salonica will be chargeable to that Budget.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Financial Commission have no knowledge of the details of the military Budget, and could not supply the information desired by the hon. Member. For the latter part of the Question, I must refer the hon.
  1640
  Member to the Answer returned to his Question on the 20th instant.†
  MR. LYNCH: That Answer was no reply to my Question as to the number of troops chargeable.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not the figures by me.

  Turkish Customs Duties on British Goods.
  MR. BOWLES: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the condition proposed by His Majesty's Government and accepted by the Porte and the Powers with regard to the imposition of extra three per centum Custom duties upon British imports into Turkey, there is any provision which will prevent the allocation of Turkish funds set free by those new duties to the financial assistance of the proposed Baghdad Railway.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to the statements made by me on the 14th instant,‡ till Papers can be laid.

  Condition of Morocco Prisons.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the improvement in the condition of Morocco prisons has ceased, and that things have reverted to their former condition; that the prison inspectors have been dismissed; that gaolers have little and, in some cases, no pay; that the Government provides no food for the prisoners; and that the prisons are filthy, insanitary, and full of vermin; and, if so, whether he will instruct the British Minister at Tangier to consult his colleagues as to the necessity of drawing the attention of the Moorish Government to the condition of the prisons, with a view to immediate improvement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have received no official information to show that the state of affairs in the prisons of Morocco has recently deteriorated, but I will instruct His Majesty's Minister at Tangier to furnish me with a report on the subject.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 849.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxi., 226.

  New Caledonia.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many convicts are now in New Caledonia; and whether they are still being sent there by the French Government.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I beg to refer the Hon. Member to the Consular Trade Reports for 1903–4 and 1905, No. 3431 and No. 3548 Annual Series, and to my Answer given on the 20th to the hon. Member for Sheffield.†
  MR. T. L.CORBETT: Are the French authorities still sending convicts there?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: They have informed us they have no present intention of sending more convicts there. I may remind the hon. Member that New Caledonia is French and not British territory.

  Congo Free State.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that King Leopold has offered opposition to any communication being made, on the part of the Congo Free State, to the Belgian Parliamentary Committee with reference to the budget of the Free State and the financial accounts of the past three years; whether the new Colonial Council will be, as a matter of fact, composed of officials and officers appointed by the king; and whether he can furnish the House with any information on these questions.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot make any statement on these points, which it is understood are under discussion by the Parliamentary Committee in Belgium. Pending that, it cannot be known what the result will be.

  The Assuan Dam.
  MR. ALDEN: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Council of Ministers at Cairo has decided to increase the height of the Assuan Dam in order to increase the present storage of Nile water for irrigation purposes; whether he is aware that this
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 846–7.
  1642
  scheme will further submerge the temple and island of Philæ; whetherarchaæological experts can hold out any hope under the circumstances of being able to save these ancient monuments from irreparable injury; and, if he finds it possible, will he make a reassuring statement on the subject.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras on this subject. The question of the temples of Philæ is fully dealt with in the despatch from Lord Cromer which will be laid before the House.

  Concessions in Mesopotamia.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a concession of the petroliferous deposits in Mesopotamia was granted by the Porte on the 4th–17th July, 1904; that this concession was given on that day to the Company of the Ottoman Railway of Anatolia, represented by Mr. Zander, in conformity with an Iradé of the Sultan; whether he is aware if such concession is still in force; and whether, if he has no information on the subject, he will make inquiry by telegraph of His Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to my statement of 22nd instant,‡ and I am not of opinion that any useful purpose would be served by telegraphing to His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. I cannot publish private information about concessions.

  United States and Canadian Tariffs.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations between His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington and the United States Government embraced the tariff relations of the United States and Canada; and whether it is a fact announced in New York that the United States Secretary of State has proposed the adoption by Canada of the United States tariff as laid against Great Britain and all other countries, and then to establish free trade between the United States and the Dominion.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxi, 1265.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The general negotiations respecting commercial reciprocity which were left unsettled in 1898 have not been reopened in recent negotiations with the British Ambassador, and have formed no part of them. In answer to the latter part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have not heard of any such proposal having been made.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Would the Ambassador be empowered to enter into such negotiations?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: He is empowered to do the best he can to settle outstanding questions between the United States and Canada. As the House is aware, there were questions respecting commercial reciprocity left unsettled, and these would technically form part of the outstanding questions; but, as a matter of fact, in the negotiations that have taken place, neither the United States nor Canada, so far as I know, has shown any desire to reopen that question.

  Charity Lands and Land Tax.
  MR. EVERETT: On behalf of the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the recent decisions in the High Court (Curtis v. Old Monklands Conservative Association), trustees of charity lands are not now entitled to relief from land tax, even though the income from such lands is under £160 per annum; and, seeing that in all such cases where the income of such charity lands provides gifts in money or kind for poor persons the fact that land tax is now charged reduces such gifts, to the disadvantage of the poor, he will, at the earliest moment, take such steps as are necessary to remedy this state of affairs.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,): I sympathise with the position of small charities which find a concession withdrawn, which, through a mistaken view of the law, has in fact been allowed to them for several years. On the other hand, the necessities of the individual recipients of charity have no necessary relation to the total income of the particular charities from which they receive relief. A charity with a total income
  1644
  of £1,000 may provide small allowances for 100 beneficiaries, while one with £150 may have to provide for only one or two. There is, therefore, it seems to me, no inequity in saying that all charities shall be treated alike, without regard to the amount of their total income, as the law (as now ascertained) says they shall be treated. Charities as such have never been exempted from land tax, and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose legislation on the subject.

  Beer Tax.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a recent Return has shown that a considerable proportion of the beer brewed in this country is almost entirely brewed from malt and hops; and whether he can favourably differentiate in the coming Budget in the taxation of such beer as compared with that levied upon beer brewed largely from malt substitutes.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is true that "a considerable proportion of the beer brewed in this country is almost entirely brewed from malt and hops." It is, however, also true that, in substituting a beer duty for the old malt duty in 1880, Mr. Gladstone made "freedom of the mash-tun" a prominent condition of the change, and that no good reason has ever been shown for departing from that condition. I may refer the hon. Member to the Report of Beer Materials Committee, No. C. 9171 of 1899.

  Sale of Silver to the West Indies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the profits made by the Imperial Government from the sale of silver to the West Indian Colonies in each year from 1900 to 1906 inclusive, respectively.
  MR. ASQUITH: The estimated profits in the years named were: in 1900, £29,606; in 1901, £15,309; in 1902, £7,029; in 1903, £2,207; and in 1906, £33,324. In 1904 and 1905 there were no profits.

  Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered altering the

  1645
  investments of the Post Office Savings Bank, now in Consols, into Irish land stock while prices are about the same for both, with a view to increasing the income of the Post Office Savings Bank, and putting them on a more solvent basis.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would delay the consideration of this suggested treatment of Irish land stock until the Irish Government measure was introduced.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer to that is in the negative. At the 31st March, 1906, the Post Office Savings Bank Fund held £2,321,000 guaranteed 2¾ per cent. stock out of a total amount of such stock then created of £13,197,000. At the same date, the Fund held £60,617,092 Consols. So that the substitution which my hon. friend suggests would be only practicable (if at all) within rather narrow limits. Quite apart from this, however, there are many reasons which would make this Trustees of the Fund hesitate to embark upon such an operation—particularly under present conditions.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consideration of the very great success which has attended the Belgian Government in applying Post Office savings to the erection of houses for the working classes, he can see his way to introduce legislation with a like object here?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not sure that that arises out of the Question. At any rate, I should like to have notice of the Question.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that people holding securities on money borrowed from banks have, in some cases, to pay both the tax on their own income and also on the interest paid to the banks, on which the banks also pay the tax, the Exchequer therefore receiving it twice over; will he in such cases see that repayment is made so that income-tax is only paid on the owner's true income as intended by the 1890 Act; and will he take into consideration
  1646
  so amending the Law that there shall be no uncertainty on the point.
  MR. ASQUITH: The result indicated in the Question may arise, but, as far as possible, the Board of Inland Revenue endeavour to meet such cases by allowing repayment of tax on the interest paid to banks by borrowers, whenever the circumstances admit of it, and any case of hardship, if brought before them, is always carefully considered. I fear that such difficulties can hardly be altogether avoided under the system of tax by deduction, and an amendment of the Law to meet all cases would be extremely difficult to frame.

  London Omnibus Service Tickets.
  MR. STANGER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain omnibus companies in London issue to their passengers tickets on which are printed numbered sections and nothing more, whereas other companies indicate clearly on their tickets the point to which the passenger is entitled to be carried for the fare he pays; and whether, for the convenience of the public, he will take steps to make the latter practice obligatory in all cases.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone,): I have no power to insist on uniformity of practice in respect of the details shown on omnibus tickets, but I will call the attention of the Commissioner of Police to the point raised by my hon. friend.

  The Crown and the Police.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any reasons why the police are not included in the civil services of the Crown; and whether such exclusion extends to the higher and highest or is limited to the lower and lowest ranks.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The police forces of England and Wales were created and are maintained, not by the Crown, but by a large number of police authorities under statutes wholly different from those regulating the civil service of the Crown. The only exceptions are the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of

  1647
  the Metropolitan Police who are appointed by the Crown, and for whose salaries provision is made in the Votes.

  Adulteration of Calico—Sunderland Death.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the inquest held at Sunderland on 18th March instant as to the death of Ann Wilson, aged sixteen years, during the hearing of which the house surgeon at the infirmary said that death was due to blood poisoning, which had been set up by the dressing from the calico, the coroner further remarking that the calico was laden with as much dressing as manufacturers cared to put into it for trade purposes, either to obtain a better price for it or to improve its appearance; and, if so, whether it is his intention to introduce any legislation having for its object the restriction of the sale of calico containing matter of such a dangerous character.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have obtained a piece of this calico and I am taking steps to obtain an expert opinion upon it and upon all the circumstances of the case.

  Inspection of Omnibus Tickets.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeing that omnibus companies are in precisely the same position as licensed cabs and have no legal right to demand payment of fares in advance, will he state whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent omnibus passengers being annoyed by inspectors entering the 'bus and demanding inspection of tickets.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think the occasional inspection of omnibus tickets is unreasonable or that it causes annoyance. Payment in advance seems calculated to avoid delay when the passengers descend, but in any case I have no power to interfere. It must not be understood that I accept the view of the law taken by the hon. Member.

  Licensing Justices' Liabilities.
  SIR H. COTTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, I beg to ask the Secretary
  1648
  of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that licensing justices who have incurred expenses in the work of referring licences to compensation authorities, or in supporting their objections before quarter sessions, have been rendered personally liable for such expenses; and whether, in dealing with the licensing question, he will endeavour to prevent their being so penalised for the discharge of duties imposed upon them by the Act of 1904.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that one of the difficulties which confront licensing justices in the performance of their duties is the pecuniary liability to which they may be exposed. I have the point under consideration.

  Crime in West Suffolk.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that during the year 1905 there were in the West Suffolk administrative county 228 indictable offences committed known to the police and 817 non-indictable offences; whether these offences comprised, amongst others, one case of malicious wounding, one case of rape, two cases of indecent assault on females, four cases of larceny of horses and cattle, nine cases of arson, I three cases of burglary, six cases of housebreaking, 175 cases of larceny, and two cases of perjury; if he can state how many of these offences were committed in the Bury St. Edmund's district; and, if these figures accurately represent the amount of crime in this administrative county, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes. The figures given in the Question correspond with those given in the Criminal Statistics for 1905. The Returns do not show in what part of the county the offences were committed. The amount of crime in West Suffolk is not more than in many other rural counties, and I believe the police are quite able to cope with it.

  Alien Criminals in London.
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens summarily dealt with and convicted by the various magistrates in the Metropolitan Police area during each of the past five years

  1649
  for which Returns are available, the nationality of the aliens so convicted, and the nature of the offences for which they have been convicted.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of aliens convicted each year during the last five years for which Returns are available for indictable offences at the Old Bailey, the Clerkenwell Sessions, and the South London Sessions, the nationalities of the convicted aliens, the various terms of imprisonment inflicted, the number of cases of aliens reported for deportation, the actual number of aliens deported for criminal offences, and the total estimated cost to the Treasury already incurred during the past five years, and to be incurred before their sentences expire, in bringing alien criminals to conviction at these courts and in maintaining them in prison after conviction.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I cannot reply to the detailed Questions put to me, as the information necessary for the purpose is not available, and could not be obtained with any substantial degree of accuracy, even by a most laborious search. I can, however, say that in the last five years for which the figures are available there were received into London prisons on conviction, summary or other, the following numbers of persons who, according to their own statements, were born in foreign countries: —In 1901, 1,667; in 1902, 2,090; in 1903, 2,132; in 1904, 2,309; in 1905,2,206. Further, in the year 1906, the first year of the operation of the Aliens Act, 332 aliens were recommended by metropolitan Courts for expulsion; and out of these 202 were expelled during the year, many of the aliens being at the end of the year still in prison undergoing their sentences. I may add that full information as to the: operation of the expulsion provisions of the Aliens Act is in preparation and will be published in due course.

  Insanitary Workshops.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints as to dirty or otherwise insanitary workshops and factories have been sent by the Factory Department to
  1650
  the metropolitan borough councils during the twelve months ending 28thFebruary last; also the number of prosecutions instituted and cases brought before the court by officers of the metropolitan borough councils for overcrowding or insanitation in such factories or workshops.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of notices sent by the men inspectors to the metropolitan borough councils during the period named in the Question with regard to insanitary conditions in factories and workshops was 488. I have not been able at such short notice to obtain the number of those sent by the women inspectors, but the number in 1906 was 298. I have not the number of prosecutions instituted by the borough councils in respect of insanitary conditions: during the period in question, but the figure for 1905, as given by the returns of the medical officers of health, was nineteen.

  Juvenile Woman Suffragists.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the importation of young girls, bereft of proper protection, into London, in order to swell the ranks of organised processions and demonstrations of suffragettes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I fear I can add nothing to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Brigg Division.†
  MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday's question was particular and this is general?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I must argue from the particular to the general.

  London Police Libraries.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any, and, if any, how many, new books were added to the libraries of the M Division of Metropolitan Police during the year ending 31st December, 1906; what was the cost of the new books;
  † See (4) Debates, clxxl., 1509.

  1651
  whether the constables have any voice in the selection of the books; if not, who selects them; and whether, as nearly every metropolitan borough has adopted the Free Libraries Act, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing the contribution now required from every constable to maintain libraries, and advise them to take advantage of the facilities offered them by the free libraries.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The contribution referred to is nominal in amount, being only a penny a month. It provides not only books but also newspapers for the recreation and library rooms. The existence of free libraries does not meet the needs served by the stations' libraries. No money appears to have been spent on new books in the M Division during 1906, but there was expenditure on newspapers, etc. Constables, as a rule, have a voice in the selection of books, as it is desirable they should, and where, if anywhere, this practice does not exist, it will be arranged for.
  DR. COOPERasked if the police, or many of them, were not householders and as such had to pay the free library rate. Why should they be compelled to subscribe to the police library?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a very small amount, and I do not know that it is really compulsory, but I will inquire on that point.

  Manchester Unemployed.
  MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at the beginning of the present month the names of over 800 unemployed were on the Manchester Distress Committee's register, that the number is increasing, and that only about one-fourth are classed as general labourers; whether an adequate grant is to be made from the funds at his disposal in aid of this committee's farm colony, now being worked with a view to men supporting themselves and their families; and whether he contemplates making proposals which may remove the difficulties of the local authorities whose employment schemes he does not approve or cannot assist.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns,): I am aware that there is a considerable number of persons on the register of the Manchester Distress Committee, but I have not seen the figures mentioned by my hon. friend. I have received an application from the committee for a grant for the purpose to which he refers, but I have not felt able to comply with it. The answer to the last part of the Question must be in the negative.

  Treatment of Casual Paupers.
  MR. W. R. REA: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the custom of certain workhouse authorities not to liberate the inmates of casual wards until late in the morning following the second night of their sojourn; and whether he will take steps to put an end to the practice, with a view to facilitating the inmates' securing work elsewhere.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: An order of the Local Government Board issued in 1892 requires that a casual pauper, who has been detained for more than one night, and who represents that he is desirous of seeking work, shall be allowed to discharge himself at half-past five in the morning in the summer, and at half-past six in the winter, provided that whilst in the casual ward he has performed the prescribed task of work to the best of his ability. I am not aware of cases of failure on the part of workhouse officers to comply with this requirement, but if any instance of the kind is brought to my knowledge I will give attention to it.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Is there any idea of carrying out the suggestions of the Committee recently appointed in regard to this matter?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I suppose the hon. Member refers to the Committee on Labour Tests. The Local Government Board and the Home Office are considering that Report. It has not been before us very long.

  Married Women's Liability
  MR. NEWNES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether

  1653
  he proposes to take steps to render a married woman with separate estate liable to contribute towards the maintenance of her parent, seeing that a son with property or with sufficient wage-earning capacity is so liable.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have stated in reply to previous Questions that I have taken note of this point, but that I cannot promise to introduce legislation on the subject at the present time. I have, however, brought the matter under the notice of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, who have before them the subject of the contribution by persons to the support of their relatives.

  The Unemployed Fund.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will give the names of the twenty-two towns in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales that have made applications and been refused a grant out of the £200,000; and whether he will state the number of men who have registered their names as being out of employment in the same towns.
  MR JOHN BURNS: I will send my hon. friend the names of the twenty-two distress committees to which I referred in my answer to his Question on Friday last, and I will add particulars as to the number of applicants for assistance who were registered up to 1st February.†

  Automatic Stamp Machinery.
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for automatic machines for the supply of penny and halfpenny stamps to be placed on the various railway stations, so that the public may be enabled to procure stamps on Sundays, Bank Holidays, and at other times when the post offices are closed.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton,): Experiments are being made with certain automatic machines for the supply of postage stamps, and, if the result is satisfactory, machines will be placed where they are most likely to meet a public demand.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 1273.
  MR. LIDDELL: If the machines are found to be satisfactory will the right hon. Gentleman place them at railway stations?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member must allow me time. We have not yet got a satisfactory machine. When we have, I will consider what are the best positions for the public convenience.
  MR. LIDDELL: I have tried the machine myself and found it very satisfactory.

  Leeds Sorting Office Staff.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that excessive overtime is being worked by the staff in the sorting office at Leeds; whether this could be obviated by an increase in the staff dealing with circulars, and the appointment of an adequate substitution staff with well-defined duties, such staffs not to be drawn upon for duties other than those for which they were established; and, if so, whether steps will be taken at an early date to deal with this matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Additional force has of late been employed in the sorting office at Leeds, and the amount of overtime duty performed has been much reduced. A revision of the establishment is under consideration, and the matter will not be lost sight of.

  Delay in Leeds Postal Appointments.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are a number of young men at the Leeds post office whose appointments are delayed, contrary to the provisions of the circular of the Civil Service Commissioners, which states that appointments are made, after passing examination, in six to twelve months; that the men in question have been in the office from three and a half to two years, doing the work of the appointed staff for from 4s. to 6s. per week less; and whether, seeing that this delay is preventing proper increase in increments, loss of holiday, and loss of pension, steps will be taken to inquire into, and deal with the matter at an early date.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Four of the male learners at Leeds have been appointed recently to the establishment, and I hope shortly to be able to arrange for the appointment of others. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that any of these officers were promised appointment after six or twelve months from their first employment. No such promise was given.

  British Museum Reading Room.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the closing of the Reading Room of the British Museum from 15th April till 31st October, and the inconvenience to be caused thereby to students and literary men and women who daily make use of the Reading Room, steps will be taken to minimise the inconvenience by providing temporary accommodation for the readers in the galleries of the Museum or elsewhere.
  MR. HARCOURT: I would refer my hon. friend to the printed Answer given yesterday by the Secretary of the Treasury to the hon. Member for Northampton, and circulated with the Votes this morning.† The matter is in the hands of the Trustees, and I have no power to make other arrangements.

  The National Physical Laboratory.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if certain officials of the National Physical Laboratory were some time ago engaged for approximately nine months on a research on gutta-percha for a private firm; if so, what fee was paid for the research; if it has been published and is accessible to the general public; and, if not, will he give orders for its immediate publication.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Runciman,): I am informed that the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The fee paid was £502 17s. 4d. The chemical results arrived at were published in a paper by Dr. Caspari, which was printed in the Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry for 30th December, 1905, and in the Collected Researches of the
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 1470.
  1656
  Laboratory, volume II.; a copy of this has been placed in the library. The physical and mechanical results are in the Director's hands and could be published if necessary, but it has not been thought that they are of sufficient public importance to justify the expenditure.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, during the last two years, the National Physical Laboratory has received approximately £15,000 from the Government, in the way of grants; and, if so, what return the nation has received in the way of researches of national importance; and if he will state when and where such researches were published.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The sum of £15,000 has been received from the Government in the way of grants for buildings and equipment during the past two years. The buildings are now being erected and are for the most part still in the contractor's hands. Arrangements are well advanced for commencing work which will, it is confidently expected, yield satisfactory results.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of money for the original equipment, and in the way of annual grants, which the National Physical Laboratory has received from Government up to the present time; and if he can give particulars of the results of any research which can be considered in any way an adequate return for the expenditure incurred.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The total amount of money received for the original equipment of the National Physical Laboratory was £19,000. The annual grants from September, 1899, to March, 1907, have amounted to £33,500 in all. Full particulars of the expenditure of these grants appear in the accounts of the Laboratory, presented annually to the Treasury. A list of the researches published is printed in the Report of the Laboratory for 1906, pp. 21–25. Copies of this Report have been placed in the Library and the more important researches, exclusive of those published from the Observatory Department, are marked with an asterisk. The results of the principal investigations also appear in the

  1657
  Collected Researches of the National Physical Laboratory, two volumes of which have been issued and are in the Library; a third volume is in course of preparation. These volumes may be obtained from Messrs. Harrison and Sons, 45, St. Martin's Lane, the publishers for the Laboratory.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked whether it was not the fact that this institution, which was supported by State funds, was in competition with private manufacturers and undertook pure tests of conductivity which could be carried out by any physical chemist in his own laboratory.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether it was not the fact that our national expenditure on these matters was far too small.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the last Question involved a matter of opinion. There was a Departmental Committee of the Treasury now sitting to inquire into the working of the Laboratory, which he hoped would report shortly.

  North Sea Fishery Investigation.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that a sum of £12,500 is placed on the Estimates for the current year for North Sea Fisheries investigation, Class 4, Vote 6 (Scientific Investigation), will he state the entire sum expended by His Majesty's Government up to the present time on North Sea Fisheries investigation, and what sum has been expended up to the present time by each of the other Powers participating in the investigation, seeing that this information is not contained at page 41 of Command Paper 2966 of 1906.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Perhaps I maybe allowed to answer this Question. The amount expended by the Government on North Sea Fisheries investigations during the five years which end in July next will have been about £70,000. Information as to the estimated expenditure of other Powers will be found on pages 112 to 115 of Command Paper 1313 of 1903.

  Tithe Bent Charge Redemption
  MR. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member
  1658
  for South Somerset, as representating the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, in an ordinary case of reapportionment or redemption of a small amount of vicarial tithe rent-charge in the parish of Epping, Essex, No. 16940, the Board of Agriculture have been occupied more than two years, and have not yet completed the requisite formalities; and whether he can see his way to provide some method by which this delay may be avoided, and greater facilities afforded for carrying out such applications in future, in order that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may be better enabled to relieve certain payers of tithe rent-charge from paying for properties belonging to other owners without adequate means of redress.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Although some preliminary inquiries were addressed to the Board in this case in March,1905, the formal application for redemption was not received until April, 1906. A survey of the lands was then necessary, but owing to the pressure of work in the Department it was unfortunately impossible to get this completed until early this month. The order for redemption has now been made and the proceedings will be completed with the least possible delay.

  Anthrax Outbreaks.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, for the week ending 9th March last, there were twenty-eight outbreaks of anthrax and thirty-six animals attacked by the disease in seventeen different counties in England, Wales, and Scotland; whether in consequence of the spread of anthrax throughout the country, which is not only financially disastrous, but dangerous to human beings who have to deal with it, the Board of Agriculture will institute an inquiry as to the origin of the disease and as to what steps should be taken to stamp it out; and whether consideration will be given to the question of the desirability of paying compensation to those who have suffered heavy losses through the disease.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Answer to the first part of my hon.

  1659
  friend's Question is in the affirmative, but I am happy to say that the disease is not increasing throughout the country, the number of cases this year being slightly less than in the corresponding periods of 1905 and 1906. Investigations are proceeding both as regards the nature of the disease and the means by which it is spread, and any amendments in the existing Orders on the subject which may appear to be necessary will at once be made. The Board are only empowered to pay compensation where animals are compulsory slaughtered. In the case of anthrax it is, as a general rule, inadvisable to resort to slaughter owing to the extreme danger of spreading the disease if any of the blood is spilt.

  House Attendants and All-night Sittings.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how long the female attendant was on duty at the staff bar in the House during the sitting of Wednesday-Thursday, and what extra pay she received for her services.
  SIR J. A. JACOBY: In reply to the hon. Member there are two female attendants in the staff bar. The female attendant was relieved from duty on Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, and will receive two days extra pay. The all-night sitting of the House puts a great strain on the Kitchen Committee. The manager is instructed to work the staff in sections, and relieve them once or twice during the sitting.

  Island of Lewis Herring Fishery.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the inability of the fishermen in the Island of Lewis to provide themselves with steam drifters for the prosecution of the herring fishing, will the Congested Districts Board consider the expediency of granting loans to Lewis fishermen for the acquirement of steam drifters, especially in view of the assistance rendered to the Irish fisheries by the Government.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): The Question of granting loans to fishermen for the purchase of fishing boats has been care-
  1660
  fully considered, and has been rejected as, on the whole, inexpedient.

  Scottish National Galleries—Board of Trustees.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that, under the Act of last year, the Board of Trustees to manage the National Galleries of Scotland must be established by 1st April, is he now in a position to announce the names of the chairman and members of the Board.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Not yet; I hope to do so shortly.

  School Board Register.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the number of persons in Scotland, especially in the Highland crofting counties, who have no votes at school board elections by reason of their rentals being under £4, will he arrange to deal with the school board franchise in the new Scottish Education Bill.
  MR. SINCLAIR: As I yesterday informed the hon. Member for Sutherland, it is proposed under the Bill to make the school board franchise the same as that for parish council elections.
  MR. MORTON: Will it be the same franchise as is used in the county council elections?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, I think so.

  Scotland and the Education Grant.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, having regard to the £100,000 that it is proposed to vote to England and Wales for school buildings out of Imperial funds, he has arranged to get an equivalent grant for Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

  Scottish Poor Law Medical Relief.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the fact that parish councils cannot use money out of the rates to compel a medical man to provide an assistant for the general benefit of the public, he will put into

  1661
  operation the powers of the Local Government (Scotland) to protect the interests of the poor.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am informed that the Local Government Board for Scotland have no authority to see that medical assistance is provided other than for the legal poor; the duty of provision for them lies with the parish council.

  Loch Ness Fishery.
  MR. J. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that a conviction under the Salmon Fishing Act of 1844 was recently obtained in the Inverness Sheriff Court against a Fort Augustus angler for fishing in Loch Ness; if he is aware that the public have from time immemorial exercised unchallenged the right of fishing in Loch Ness, which is a navigable loch; and if he will take the necessary steps to ascertain what are the rights of the public in this matter, and, if necessary, to protect them.
  MR. SINCLAIR: A conviction was recently given, as stated. I am not aware as to the exercise by the public of the right of salmon fishing in Loch Ness; as far as I am informed it does not appear to differ from other lochs in Scotland in this respect; if my hon. friend desires me to do so, I will make further inquiry upon that point.
  MR. J. DEWAR: Will the fishing rights in Loch Ness come within the inquiry to be held into Scottish riparian rights generally?
  MR. SINCLAIRsaid he could give no definite pledge as to the scope of that inquiry, and he would like notice of questions as to particular fishings.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: Will inquiry be made as regards other lochs?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I understand the law is the same for all lochs of the same character.

  Beauly and Ness Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the names of the landlords who claim fishery rights to the estuary of
  1662
  the Ness and Beauly rivers; and to what extent those rights extend seawards from the mouth of the Beauly and Ness rivers respectively.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply. I have made inquiries, but I have not yet been able to obtain sufficiently accurate information to enable me to give an answer to my hon. friend.

  Reenard Pier.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what steps, if any, will be taken to build a pier at Reenard, county Kerry, under the Marine Works Act.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. Birrell,: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement on this subject. The funds available under the Marine Works Act are now very limited, as the hon. Member is aware. The claims of Reenard and other places to assistance from the fund are at present engaging the attention of the Irish Government.

  Cooscroum Landing Stage.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the application to the Congested Districts Board for improved landing facilities at Cooscroum, county Kerry, was made before the Marine Works Bill was introduced, and that no application for assistance under the Act has been made; and whether, in view of the necessity for improvement at this important fishing cove, the Congested Districts Board will deal with this application out of the funds placed at their own disposal, without reference to applications made for other works of a different nature under the Marine Works Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The proposal to build a landing place at Cooscroum was under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board so far back as 1892, but Coonana was decided upon as a more suitable site and a pier was built at that place. The question has been renewed in recent years, but the Board have

  1663
  decided to postpone its consideration until it shall be ascertained what works are to be carried out at Reenard Point, and what contribution, if any, they may give to such works. The matter will be again brought before the Board at their meeting next month.

  Cattle Banches in King's County.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a portion of the Fuller estate at Woodfield, Clara, King's County, consisting of 140 Irish acres, exclusive of wood and bog land, now let on the eleven months grazing system by the Receiver in Chancery, the owner being of unsound mind; and whether, in view of the fact that there are tenants on other parts of this estate living under miserable conditions on holdings of a few acres of bog land, he will advise the Estates Commissioners to contemplate the purchase of this cattle ranche for the economic enlargement of the holdings of such tenants and the provision of holdings for their sons, who are walking about unable to find employment; and whether he would also recommend the Estates Commissioners similarly to consider the case of another cattle ranche of a thousand acres on the estate of Mrs. Jane Bailey, at Ball cumber, King's County, with a view to the enlargement of uneconomic holdings or the reinstatement of evicted tenants, or both purposes combined.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace any proceedings for sale as having been instituted before them in respect of the estates mentioned. If the hon. Member will furnish them with particulars of the estates and the names and addresses of the owners or their agents, the Commissioners will inquire whether the estates are for sale.

  Teaching Staffs of Irish Schools.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have officially stated that it was impracticable for one teacher to instruct separately and efficiently six different classes, as was the case in small schools under the results
  1664
  system; and, if so, whether, in the case of such teachers who did not receive their training diplomas owing to service under these circumstances, and who have given thoroughly satisfactory service under the new system, the issue of these diplomas would be reconsidered, or is it the intention of the Commissioners to penalise permanently those teachers for unsatisfactory service under conditions which the Commissioners have admitted to be impracticable for success and have revised.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a statement to the effect mentioned was made in their introduction to the revised programme of instruction issued in 1901. This statement, which should be read with the context, formed part of an exposition of the necessity for altering the methods of school organisation which existed under the obsolete system of payment by results. Training diplomas are awarded by the Commissioners to King's scholars who, after training, have given two years satisfactory service as teachers. The Commissioners see no reason to reconsider cases in which diplomas were disallowed after adequate time had been afforded to King's scholars to earn them by satisfactory service. I will send to the hon. Member a detailed statement which I have received from the Commissioners, giving their reasons.

  Sugar Beet Cultivation in Ireland.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the result of the tests of the growing of sugar beetroot in Ireland compare favourably with the production in the great sugar beet countries of the continent; and if he can give any estimate of the amount of the acreage in Ireland suitable for growing sugar beet, and how many tons of sugar such an acreage would produce according to the results of the latest tests.
  MR. BIRRELL: In the opinion of the Department of Agriculture the Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Department are not in a position to estimate the acreage in Ireland specially suitable for growing sugar beet, and consequently are unable to state the number of tons of sugar which it might be possible to produce.

  1665
  If the hon. Member will refer to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Sligo, on 27th February,† he will see that the Department do not consider that beet could be made as remunerative a crop as other root crops now grown in Ireland.

  Lord Crofton's Roscommon Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a representation was made to the Commissioners last month by the small tenants in the Ogulla district, Tulsk, Roscommon, asking for the purchase and redistribution of the grass lands on the estate of Lord Crofton, Moate, county Roseommon, with a view to relieving congestion and preventing emigration; and whether he can say with what result.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received a memorial to the effect mentioned from certain tenants on the estate of Lord Crofton, and have referred it for inquiry to their inspector, who is dealing with the estate. The inspector's report has not yet been received.

  Ballynanty Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have instructed or will instruct their inspector to use his best endeavours to arrange between Mr. Smith, owner of the Ballynanty property, near Bruff, or his agent, Mr. White, of Limerick, and Mrs. Hartigan, of Clorane, Croom, county Limerick, so as to give her back her evicted farm in Ballynanty.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have had this case investigated by an inspector. The owner declines to reinstate Mrs. Hartigan, upon the ground that her husband was not evicted, but surrendered his leasehold interest in the farm, and signed a formal deed of surrender. The Commissioners will further consider Mrs. Hartigan's application in connection with the allotment of any untenanted land which they may acquire in the locality.
  † See (4) Debates, clxx., 53.

  Moohan Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the Estates Commissioners, through their inspector or by private correspondence, have as yet been able to induce Mr. Courtnay Croker, landlord, or Mr. John Barrington, agent, of the Moohan property near Herbertstown, county Limerick, to get Timothy Kirby, planter on the farm of Mr. Michael Power, to leave the farm on some consideration and hand it back to the owner before the vesting order will have been issued to all the other tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not yet been able to effect any arrangement in the case referred to, but will direct their inspector when visiting the estate to ascertain from Kirby the terms, if any, upon which he would be prepared to surrender the holding.

  Manister Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners, through their inspector or otherwise, have endeavoured to make some arrangement for reinstatement to his farm on the lands of Beltyville, Manister, county Limerick, between the landlord, the Reverend Mr. Lee, or his agent, Ernest Brown, of Limerick, and the evicted tenant, Mr. Edmond Hartigan, of Patrickswell, Holycross, Kilmallock; and, if such has not yet been done, will he use his influence in that direction.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have had the case of Mr. Hartigan investigated by their inspector, whose report has been received and is awaiting their consideration.

  Knocklong Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the negotiations for sale and purchase between the Misses Cooper and their tenants around Knocklong, county Limerick, have as yet resulted in an application for the sale of the estate before the Estates Commissioners; and will he use his influence

  1667
  with the Estates Commissioners and Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville, county Cork, agents to the property, so as to restore to their holdings the evicted tenants, Thomas Barry and John M'Grath.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the evicted tenants mentioned, and are in communication with the owner with the object of procuring an inspection of the holdings formerly occupied by these persons. Proceedings have recently been instituted before the Commissioners for the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate in question, but the case has not reached its turn to be dealt with.

  Anghavas Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS F. SYMTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners will have Mrs. Alice Reilly reinstated on the farm of land in Anghavas, on the estate of Lord Harlech, in county Leitrim, from which her late husband was evicted; and, as the man who is in occupation of the farm at the present time is willing to take compensation, if steps will be taken to have this evicted tenant restored to her home without further delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have investigated Mrs. Reilly's case and have ascertained that the former holding is now occupied by a permanent tenant. The Commissioners have decided that they cannot at present take action in the matter, but they will consider Mrs. Reilly's application in the event of their having any untenanted land in the locality to dispose of.

  Lord Dunraven's Tenantry.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will arrange that the Estates Commissioners, now that Lord Dunraven and his tenants around Adare, Croom, and elsewhere have arranged as to terms of sale and purchase, shall also arrange between his Lordship and George Spearing, of Beabus, and Thomas Drew, who are yet unsettled for owing to inundation of land caused by hatcheries on the river Mague put down
  1668
  by the landlord, and eviction in the case of Mr. Drew.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have fully considered the case of George Spearing, and have decided to take the necessary steps to declare Spearing to have purchased his holding at their estimated price. The inspector's report as to the case of Thomas Drew has not yet been received.

  Tyrone Orangeman.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been called to the speech delivered by Mr. Averell Lloyd at the annual soiree of the Tannamore Loyal Orange Lodge, county Tyrone, No. 513; whether he is aware that this gentleman incited his hearers to obtain arms and teach their children how to use them; whether Mr. Averell Lloyd holds the commission of the peace; and whether he has been asked for an explanation of the language attributed to him.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware whether the Lord Chancellor's attention has been directed to the speech in question. According to a newspaper report which I have seen, Mr. Lloyd urged his hearers to provide arms for their own protection, and teach their children to use them. Mr. Lloyd holds the commission of the peace. I do not think it necessary to call the Lord Chancellor's attention to the matter.
  MR. LUNDON: The advice is a double-edged sword which can cut both ways.

  Knockrow Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the night of 8th March, fifty-six yards of wall, along the public road, were knocked down on the farm of Patrick Raftery, at Knockrow, Kilchreest, county Galway; and whether any persons have been arrested in connection with this outrage.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the night of 8th March

  1669
  a loose stone wall bounding Mr. Raftery's farm was thrown down. No arrest has yet been made.

  United Irish League—South Galway Branch.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the South Galway executive of the United Irish League, at a meeting held on Sunday, 10th March, ordered the herd on the farm of Patrick Raftery, at Knockrow, Kilchreest, county Galway, not to work any longer for his master, because Raftery had taken the farm from which a former tenant had been evicted; and whether he will see that the herd in question has ample protection in case he continues to work for Raftery.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is this the branch of which the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board is a member, and have any other members of the Government joined it?
  MR. BIRRELL: I only know what appears in the papers. I read it that the branch referred to was at Peckham. A report has appeared in a local newspaper to the effect that Mr. Raftery's herd was to be asked to cease working for his master, but the police authorities have no information that this alleged intention has been carried out. The police will afford due protection to the herd if any necessity should arise.

  Irish Judges' Addresses.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a Report of an address delivered by Mr. Justice Kenny to the grand jury of Roscommon, in which it was stated that there was veiled intimidation in that county; whether this statement was contained in a Report presented by the police authorities to the Judge; if so, whether this Report was submitted to him before being presented to the Judge; and whether it will be published in order that the statements it contains may be checked.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative. It would be inconsistent with official practice
  1670
  to publish statements furnished by the police authorities for the information of the Judges.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Judge Johnson has condemned the practice of the police supplying these reports.
  MR. BIRRELL: I saw that.

  Irish Judges and Police Reports.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the substance of the Commission under which Judges of Assize in Ireland go on circuit; and whether any authority is given by such Commission to call for reports of crimes from the constabulary, or to comment in charges to grand juries on such reports or on the subjects with which they are conversant.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that the specific powers vested in Judges by the Commission of Assize are, as regards criminal matters, to hear, examine, discuss, and determine on all treasons, murders, manslaughters, burnings, unlawful assemblies, felonies, robberies, extortions, oppressions, transgressions, crimes, contempts, offences, evildoings, and causes whatsoever within each county, as well against the peace and the common law as the form and effect of any statutes, ordinances, or provisions heretofore made; and also to deliver the gaols. The Commission goes on to command all officers and persons to aid, assist, and be obedient to the Judge in the execution of the premises.
  MR. JOYCE: Does the same practice prevail in England?
  MR. BIRRELL: So far as I understand it, the course, although not in identically the same words, is substantially the same in the two countries.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the Irish Judge authority to call for reports from the police. That is the point; and then we want to know further if there is an analogous practice in England?
  MR. BIRRELL: There is no direct command to the Irish Judge to call for

  1671
  returns, but I think the words of the Commission authorise the Judge to obtain such information as may enable him to hear, discuss, examine and determine cases coming before him.
  MR. HAYDEN: Will the Irish Government consider the advisability of issuing an order to the police not to furnish such reports in the future and thus bring the practice of the two countries into conformity?
  MR. BIRRELL: Before I answer that I must find out what the practice in England is.

  Dublin College of Science and Art.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the whole of the exterior and interior stone facings for the College of Science and Art, Dublin, will be of Irish stone.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the numerous replies which have been given on this subject.
  MR. HALPIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that stone quarried in North West Clare is some of the best obtainable? Will he not see that it is used in these buildings?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have been told that Irish stone is of the highest possible quality, but I cannot undertake to decide as between different classes of Irish stone.

  The Hague Conference.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a resolution passed unanimously by the Ontario Legislature, urging that at the forthcoming Hague Conference an attempt should be made to constitute it a permanent congress of nations; whether he has any knowledge of the views of other provinces or Colonies in this matter; and whether he will take steps to urge the desirability of such a permanent congress at the forthcoming Conference.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Stirling Burghs): I have not received the resolu-
  1672
  tion referred to, but I would point out that a permanent Court of Arbitration already exists to which outstanding cases have been referred.
  MR. BYLESasked whether, in order to meet the wide and, he hoped, laudable public interest in this forthcoming Conference, its agenda, or, at any rate, the programme to be put forward by the British delegates, might as soon as possible be communicated to the House, and also the names of the British delegates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: No doubt information as to this will be given in due time.

  Exhibitions and the Colonial Conference.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will entertain the proposal to include among the questions to be submitted to the Colonial Conference the proposal to hold a great international exhibition in London at an early date, so as to learn the views of the Colonies on the matter which would exhibit to the world the resources of the Empire and tend towards its consolidation and development.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As I informed the hon. Member on a previous occasion, I have no information about the proposal to hold an exhibition in London to which he refers.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill will be taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot fix a date at present.

  Scottish Estimates.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will set aside a day soon after Easter for the discussion of Scottish Estimates.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking. The date for dealing with the Estimates depends on a variety of considerations.

  The Channel Tunnel.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will lay any Papers setting out the opinions of their military or other advisers upon which they based their condemnation of the Channel Tunnel scheme.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The decision of His Majesty's Government was arrived at on general grounds of policy involving more than purely military or naval considerations. It is not desirable that individual opinions as regards special aspects of the question should be made public.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LANE-FOXinquired if it would be possible for the House to meet at noon on Wednesday instead of a quarter before Three o'clock.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked what business would be taken immediately after the holidays?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that, if he found it practicable and there was any general desire in that direction, he would propose that the House should meet at noon to-morrow. As it was necessary to secure the approval of the House before 7th April to the Liverpool and Hong-kong mail contracts, a Motion for the purpose would be the first Order of the day to-morrow, to be followed by the Motion for Adjournment. There would be no other Government business. On the reassembling of the House on Monday, 8th April, Supply, the Office of Works Vote, would be proposed for discussion; on Tuesday the Second Reading of the Army Bill, the debate to be continued, if necessary, on Wednesday; on Thursday (11th) the debate on procedure rules would be continued, if necessary.
  AN HON. MEMBERasked if there would be any business the next day beyond the Motion for Adjournment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is necessary to secure approval of the Liverpool and Hong Kong mail contract before 7th April, and therefore that will be the first Order on the Paper. It is not expected to lead to any prolonged discussion.
  Mr. HAROLD COXasked the ruling of Mr. Speaker on a question general in character but having special reference to the action of the Patronage Secretary in regard to the Liverpool and Hong-Kong mail contract. A Motion to approve that contract had been on the Paper for several days, and he, wishing to put before the House grave considerations in relation to the subject, had made repeated inquiries of the Whips and of the Clerk as to when the Motion would be taken, but without getting any definite assurance. The Patronage Secretary was aware of his intention, and it was with much surprise he had heard that immediately before the rising of the House on the previous night an attempt had been made to smuggle the Motion through. He would ask what means Members had of ascertaining before the beginning of each day's sitting what business would be taken during the sitting.
  Mr. SPEAKERsaid the question had had a long preamble, with which of course he had nothing to do. As to the question itself, he had to say that the fact of the notice appearing on the Order Paper was an intimation to the House that the Government intended to take the Motion if they could, and if any Member was interested, it was his duty to be present when the Motion was called. Of course, it was always open to a Member to ascertain privately the Government's intention.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. George Whiteley,)said he was not aware that the hon Member had a serious desire to raise a discussion on the contract, though there had been jocular allusions to the subject. The Motion had been put down in the usual way for the end of business and would have been taken in the usual way if it had not been blocked. The hon. Member knew perfectly well it was the intention of the Government to take it whenever they could.
  Mr. HAROLD COX: Is it not possible, when the Government intend to take a Bill at a given sitting, for it to be signified in a special manner?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion appeared in the proper place and had no objection

  1675
  been taken it would have gone through in the ordinary way.
  In reply to Sir A. Acland-Hood (Somerset, Wellington),
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the salary of the First Commissioner of Works would be reserved as a target for observations at a later period of the session, and would not be voted on the Thursday after the holidays.

NEW BILLS.
MAJOR SEELYasked the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone East if he was aware that the Small Cottages and Holdings Bill he proposed to present would shut out discussion of a Resolution on the same subject of which the hon. Member for Melton had given notice, and whether, in view of the Speaker's ruling on the previous day, he would refrain from presenting the Bill.
LORD R. CECILsaid he had carefully considered the matter, He found that the hon. Member for Barnstaple recently placed on the Paper a notice in order to preclude the hon. Member for Norwood from raising a very important question in connection with the finances of the country, and did not remove it until the opportunity for effectively raising the question had passed. Again he noticed that the hon. Member for Loughborough proposed that day to present a Bill designed to prevent the House expressing its opinion on woman suffrage. Under the circumstances he did not see his way not to present his Bill, but if the hon. Member for Loughborough refrained from presenting his it might alter his view.

ADULT (WOMEN AND MEN) ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
"To enable all adult women and men to vote at Parliamentary Elections," presented by Mr. Levy; to be read a second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

MUNICIPAL MILK DEPOTS BILL.
"To authorise and regulate the establishment of Milk Depots by certain local
1676
authorities, and for matters incidental thereto," presented by Mr. John Burns; supported by Dr. Macnamara; to be read a second time upon Monday, 8th April, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

SMALL HOLDINGS AND COTTAGES BILL.
"To facilitate the supply of Small Holdings for occupying tenants and the building and improvement of Cottages," presented by Lord Robert Cecil; supported by Mr. Laurence Hardy; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th April, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE.)
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [25th March] to Question [20th March]. "(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate, otherwise order. But this Order shall not apply to (a) Bills for imposing taxes, or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or (b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders; (2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall without further debate put the Question thereon."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
Which Amendment was—
"In line 1, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'during the time for opposed business."—(Mr. Bowles.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid that when the House rose on the previous night the Government found themselves in a position of considerable difficulty, and he ventured to say that they had not realised what the effect of these Resolutions was going to be. When he moved the adjournment

1677
it was not with any idea of obstructing the business of the House, but in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question in view of the difficult position in which he found himself. The effect of the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Norwood was that only those Bills should be sent to the Standing Committees which had passed Second Reading during the time of opposed business. That, he ventured to say, was a most reasonable regulation, but it was one which the Government had refused to acquiesce in. They had listened yesterday to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, and of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. They had brought arguments forward which the Prime Minister had not made any attempt to answer, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able in a few words to say whether he was going to accept the Amendment, or to introduce words which would achieve the same object. The arguments addressed to the Government were unanswerable. It was absolutely essential that they should safe guard the interests of private Members, and see that Bills passed through the House during the time of unopposed business did not go upstairs automatically. He believed that was not the desire of the Government. The Prime Minister had said yesterday that it was very easy for any Member to stop any Bill that came before the House at the time for unopposed business; he had only to rise in his place and say he objected to the Bill. But the House knew perfectly well that it was not possible for all hon. Members to be continuously in the House, and to be ever on the look out for Bills to which they were opposed. He did not believe that hon. Members read the mass of private Bills sent to them from the Vote Office. It might happen that one of them had an inoffensive title, and hon. Members might think it unobjectionable and allow it to go through. If that happened, there was no one to prevent its going upstairs. On the previous day they had heard a very remarkable speech from the Chancellor of the Duchy in answer to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition who had placed before the Government
1678
the case of a Bill on a Friday when the closure was moved at ten minutes to five o'clock and the division on the Second Reading was not concluded until ten minutes past five. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Government what they were going to do with that Bill if they did not wish it to go upstairs to Grand Committee. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Duchy realised the state of affairs at all, because he replied that if the Government were of opinion that the Bill ought not to go upstairs they would at once make a Motion to that effect and a division would be immediately taken. But was it possible to make such a Motion as that after five o'clock? It was impossible for any individual to make it at all, and he thought that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was inappropriate. He admitted that the Prime Minister did seem to realise the difficulty, for he had risen in his place and said that the Resolution was not intended to have the effect that they feared it would have, but that if it were found that it would have that effect, he would introduce words to guard against it.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,)said it would save time if he informed the hon. Member that the Government had already put on the Paper notice of an Amendment. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman wished to say anything more on that.
MR. STANLEY WILSONregretted that he had not seen the words on the Paper. There was a very considerable number of Amendments and he had not run through them all. Therefore he had not at present realised what effect the form of words which the Government proposed to move would have, but he took the Prime Minister's assurance that they would have the effect with which his hon. friend would be satisfied.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he had not opposed the Motion for the adjournment of the debate last night for the simple reason that it was one minute to eleven o'clock, when it seemed unnecessary to do so. He had put the words on the Paper, and perhaps

1679
the House would allow him to expand them a little. The words were as followed—
"Such Motion shall not require notice, may be made by any Member, and may be decided after the expiration of time for opposed business."
He thought that fully carried out the intentions of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would be more desirable to analyse the words of the Prime Minister when they came to the point in its order. The right hon. Gentleman would have to move them either in the form just laid down, or perhaps in some slightly amended form. Might he remind the House that really two points were raised in concluding the debate last night. One was dealt with by his noble friend the Member for East Marylebone and the other was chiefly dwelt upon by his hon. friend the Member for Norwood, in whose name the Amendment now before them stood. What the hon. Mem-
ber for Norwood had in view was that there were Bills passed sub silentio after eleven o'clock, and that it was not desirable that such Bills should go automatically to the Grand Committees; in other words, that only Bills which had undergone a certain amount of discussion in the House should obtain the privileges that this Standing Order intended prima facie to confer on particular measures. That point had not been strictly before them, and was not covered by the words which the Prime Minister had read.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman press his Amendment?
MR. BOWLES: Yes, Sir; I think under the circumstances I will press my Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes, 66; Noes, 237. (Divison List No. 94.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt HnSirAlex.F.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Nield, Herbert

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Parker,Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn Hugh O.

Fletcher, J. S.

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Balfour,Rt. HnA.J.(CityLond.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon,Sir W.Evans-(T'r Ham

Rawlinson,John FrederickPeel

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicks

Heaton, John Henniker

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford,East)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Starkey, John R.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kennaway, Rt.Hon. SirJohn H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hon.Col.W

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish,Rt. Hon. VictorC.W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Law,Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

Liddell, Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart-

Collings,Rt. Hn.J.(Birmingh'm

Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin,S)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tellers for the Ayes— Mr.

Cross, Alexander

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bowles and Mr. Stanley

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wilson.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Du Cros, Harvey

Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bennett, E. N.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Billson, Alfred

Agnew, George William

Barker, John

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barnard, E. B.

Black, Arthur W.

Alden, Percy

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Boland, John

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beauchamp, E.

Brace, William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Brigg, John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Partington, Oswald

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hayden, John Patrick

Paul, Herbert

Brooke, Stopford

Hedges, A. Paget

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Bryce, J. Annan

Hemmerde, Edward George

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Perks, Robert William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Price,C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

Higham, John Sharp

Priestley, W.E.B.(Bradford, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Hobart, Sir Robert

Radford, G. H.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Hodge, John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Channing,Sir Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rees, J. D.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hudson, Walter

Renton, Major Leslie

Cleland, J. W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Clough, William

Idris, T. H. W.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Clynes, J. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ridsdale, E. A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Collins,Sir WmJ.(St. PancrasW

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cooper, G. J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Corbett, C. H.(Sussex,E Grinst'd

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Robinson, S.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cory, Clifford John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

Runciman, Walter

Cox, Harold

Joyce, Michael

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cremer, William Randal

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Crombie, John William

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Cullinan, J.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Dalziel, James Henry

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Laidlaw, Robert

Seely, Major J. B.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Sheehy, David

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lambert, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lamont, Norman

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

Snowden, P.

Duckworth, James

Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

Stanger, H. Y.

Duncan, C.(Barrow in-Furness

Levy, Maurice

Stanley,Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Lewis, John Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lough, Thomas

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Elibank, Master of

Lundon, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Erskine, David C.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Summerbell, T.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Essex, R. W.

Macdonald,J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Evans, Samuel T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Crae, George

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Ure, Alexander

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Verney, F. W.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Vivian, Henry

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Walton, Sir John L.(Leeds, S.)

Ginnell, L.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

Menzies, Walter

Wardle, George J.

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Waring, Walter

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gooch, George Peabody

Montagu, E. S.

Weir, James Galloway

Grant, Corrie

Mooney, J. J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Greenwood, C. (Peterborough)

Morgan J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whitehead, Rowland

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Gulland, John W.

Murnaghan, George

Wiles, Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nolan, Joseph

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Halpin, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Hardy, George A. Suffolk)

O'Grady, J.

Pease.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wortc'r)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon, N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Malley, William

MR. LAURENCE HARDYmoved to omit the words "on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate." They found themselves in a difficult position as to what was to be the course of procedure. Objections had been raised and they had been met by the Amendment suggested by the Prime Minister. There was no word in the Resolution to show actually the moment when it was the intention of the Government that the Motion should be made. If it was intended that it should always follow consequentially on the Second Reading the Government would have put the word "forthwith" in the original Resolution. That therefore was evidently not the intention of the Government. They were now left in a state of uncertainty as to whether the Motion was to be made immediately after Second Reading or whether it could be deferred. The position was complicated by the fact that the provision made in paragraph 1 was different from that in paragraph 2. In the first paragraph, when a Bill had been read a second time it must go to a Standing Committee unless otherwise ordered. Under paragraph 2 the Member in charge of the Bill might make a Motion committing some of the provisions of a Bill to a Standing Committee and some to a Committee of the Whole House. With reference to the actual words which he moved to omit he maintained that they were a very strange departure from the course usually followed in connection with procedure. There were many instances of the same words being used in connection with the Standing Orders, but they were not used at present in connection with any stage of the proceedings upon which debate was actually necessary. They were, he was aware, introduced in connection with Motions extending the time in which matters could be debated. The same Motion might be used in connection with the closure when the time had come in the opinion of the Chair for the debate to end. They also had the same Motion in the case of a Minister deciding as to whether Supply should be taken on the second day of the week or not. But it was the first time such a Resolution had been proposed in regard to the Committee stage of a Bill. It had always been held that reference at any length in a debate
1684
on the Second Reading to the question whether a Bill should go to a Committee or not was out of order, because it was connected with another Motion entirely. That had been the rule hitherto, and it was desirable to know whether it was going to be the rule in the future. If the House did not debate a Bill fully on Second Reading, when was it to give an opinion? It seemed to him that in the mind of the Government the half was greater than the whole. He thought they were justified in asking for some further explanation, because this was a new form of procedure in connection with legislation which required some defence. It would be admitted by all that a Bill of a controversial character must inevitably be debated at considerable length so far as the details were concerned as well as principles. The House was aware that hon. Members would have no opportunity of discussing those principles in Committee. He would like to hear on what grounds the Government defended this new proposal which took away from the House any possibility of discussing the merits of a Bill in connection with its relegation to a Grand Committee.
MR. RAWLINSONin seconding, said he did not see why the point involved in the Amendment could not be conceded by the Government. In ninety-nine cases out of every 100 the discussion would occur outside the time limited to opposed business. It might be a safeguard that such a discussion should take place. Last session there were one or two Bills in regard to which it would be difficult to say whether they would have gone to a Committee of the Whole House or upstairs. He instanced the Plural Voting Bill in regard to which most of the work was done in Committee. Then there was the Workmen's Compensation Bill which was sent to a Standing Committee of which he was a member. In the case of that Bill the bulk of the work was done on the Report stage. The Government were defeated upstairs several times, and consequently several matters had to be set right on Report, He was glad that the Government had adhered to their decision to treat all Bills alike and to apply the rule to Bills passed sub silentio after eleven o'clock at night. But surely they ought to have a

1685
right to discuss such Motions as these after eleven o'clock, because a few words of explanation might be necessary to satisfy the House. In the case of a Bill which was allowed to go through by arrangement with both sides of the House upon the understanding that it should be sent to a Committee of the Whole House, a few words from both sides might at once put the matter right. He submitted that they were making a great departure from existing procedure in sending Bills automatically upstairs, and the least the Government could do would be to allow some sort of discussion to determine whether it was the desire of the House that a Bill should be sent upstairs or be referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
Amendment proposed—
"In lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words, "on Motion to be decided without amendment or debate."—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the object of the alteration now proposed was to facilitate business and get on with the work. He did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite quite realised what was intended. The Government did not make any secret of their intention, which was that the great majority of Bills should go upstairs. Such Bills as the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and others to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, were precisely the class of Bills which ought to go upstairs, and the only Bills which the Government wished to reserve for the whole House would be the great Government measures of the session. It was not at all desirable that time should be spent unnecessarily after 11 o'clock. Anyone could make the Motion under the new rule and it would be settled without debate. If they did not make provision there would probably be a debate and a considerable amount of delay upon each occasion. The Government did not consider that that would be advisable, and therefore it was important that it should be generally understood that all Bills,
1686
except those of the kind to which he had referred, would go upstairs.
MR. STUART WORTLEYpointed out that the course proposed might stand in the way of concessions from the Government to the Opposition as to Bills which it was desired to refer to a Committee of the whole House. If the Amendment of his hon. friend were accepted there would still be difficulties in the way of taking Bills downstairs. He thought that proper notice ought to appear upon the Paper of any Motion of the kind.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Amendment he had suggested stated that such Motion would not require any notice and might be made by any hon. Member.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he was still of opinion that such a Motion ought to appear in the ordinary way on the Paper.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he could not agree with the right hon. Member for the Hallam Division upon this occasion. On the contrary he thought it was expedient that the House should have an opportunity not only of voting but also of giving reasons for their vote. There were many Bills which were read a second time, but were quite fit for the Standing Committee, and others which were not fit for that tribunal to deal with, and hon. Members who came into the House quite new to the question under discussion would not be aware of the arguments which had been used for and against the Motion. He thought the business of the House would be facilitated and its progress accelerated if they had an opportunity of discussing this change. He viewed with apprehension crude legislation which must be mischievous and which was bound to occupy a great deal of time. He felt strongly that by this change in their procedure they were moving too fast, and, as a friend of freedom of debate, he would support the Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid it had been suggested that

1687
the adoption of the Amendment might stand in the way of the Government's acting in certain matters with the Opposition. They could see what the result of that would be. The Government having assented, at the request of the Opposition, to allow a Bill to remain in Committee of the Whole House, a discussion might take place on the question whether that course should be agreed to. The Government might say: "Although we are desirous of allowing the Bill to remain in Committee of the Whole House, yet, in view of the fact that we know for a certainty that discussion will arise, we cannot agree to your request." He hoped his hon. friend would persevere with his proposal. He did not think they should do evil that good might come. With the two exceptions of the Motion for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule and the Motion for the application of the closure, he did not know any subject which had not been from time immemorial debate able. The two exceptions belonged to quite a different category. The closure was instituted in order that the Government might deal with obstruction. The suspension of the eleven o'clock rule was introduced with the same object. Now it was proposed to go further, and to put a weapon into the hands of the Government to stifle debate—a thing which had never been done before in the history of Parliament. The Prime Minister, speaking with great candour on the subject, had said that the object of the new rule was to facilitate business, and that it was not desirable that time should be spent in discussion. But did the House desire that business should be facilitated by the stifling of discussion? They might facilitate business by preventing discussion altogether, and by merely dividing upon a Bill when it was brought in by the Government, That was the only argument which the Prime Minister had advanced for refusing to accept the Amendment. The proposals were calculated to increase the power of the Government and to decrease the power of the House of Commons. He admitted that speeches seldom influenced votes, though he remembered an occasion, about twelve years ago, when the Chancellor of the Duchy made a speech by which his vote and the votes of a great
1688
number of Members on both sides of the House were turned. It was not the desire of the House of Commons absolutely to stifle discussion. He would say personally that the best way to facilitate business was not to bring in so many Bills. Both Parties were to blame in that matter. When the Conservatives were in office he often thought that they would have done better if they had not been quite so keen for legislation. That was a simple method of facilitating business without changing the procedure and forms of the House. Their forms were extremely good, but like everything else, they were not perfect. He would be sorry to see them altered in the direction of stifling discussion. He was quite certain that Mr. Gladstone would not have approved of a Motion of this sort being made without discussion.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the Prime Minister had stated that the only Bills to be reserved for discussion in Committee of the Whole House were the greater Government Bills. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant those measures to which a special paragraph was devoted in the King's Speech, and known as big-print Bills. The question whether a Bill was so little controversial that it should go upstairs rested entirely with the Government, and the House would have no opportunity of deciding whether, in their opinion, a Bill was controversial or not. The Government were also to have the power of deciding whether or not private Members' Bills should go upstairs. He suggested that the House ought to have some intimation from the mover beforehand as to what was intended to be done with a Bill if it passed Second Reading. He could see no objection to a Bill, after Second Reading, being referred to a Committee upstairs, but they should know before the Second Reading was passed that that was the procedure proposed to be taken. He supported the Amendment on the ground that the question whether a Bill should or should not be sent to a Committee upstairs was one which ought not to be decided until Members on both sides had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions.
MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid it was all very well to say that the question whether a Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs should be discussed by the House, but after the Second Reading the discussion on the question of referring it to a Committee was, generally speaking, merely for the purpose of blocking the measure. The debate on the Second Reading was exhaustive, so far as freedom of debate was concerned. The long wrangle which followed the Second Reading was sometimes for the purpose of preventing the Bill from making the further progress to which it was entitled. If a majority of the House voted for the Second Reading, it seemed to him that an opportunity should be given for the detailed discussion of the measure in Committee. Politicians outside, who considered the methods by which the business of the House was conducted, sometimes had their feelings roused, and they expressed the hope that some day the House would arrive at a better means of getting through the work they had to do. He regretted that the Party on his side of the House should meet all amendments of procedure in a spirit of uncompromising opposition. He thought the Opposition would better fulfil its function if it directed its attention to serious points. He was quite certain that the time would come when, in order to facilitate the business of the House of Commons, they would have to shorten speeches. He held that when a Bill had been amply and completely debated on the Second Reading it should then go automatically, without further debate, to the Committee which was to consider its details. On that ground, therefore, he supported the Government, and he doubted whether his hon. friend was wise in pressing his Amendment.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that he could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for Glasgow. He was a young Member, but had been sufficiently long in the House to realise that there was a great deal of difference between the procedure of the Committee upstairs and the Committee of the Whole House. It seemed to him to be a very
1690
strong order to say that Bills should not be allowed to be discussed on the floor of the House. If the Women's Enfranchisement Bill, for instance, had passed Second Reading by only a small majority, on account of its controversial character the opportunity ought to have been given to hon. Members who did not approve of the Bill to discuss whether it should be sent to a Standing Committee upstairs, or referred to a Committee of the Whole House. After all, although a Member might not have a great interest in the whole of a particular Bill, he might wish to put down one or two Amendments on details which were of interest to his constituents, and he might not be able to do that because the Bill was out of his reach in the Committee upstairs. Therefore he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, which he was assured would not lend itself to much abuse supposing it were possible to limit the time of the discussion and the number of Members who could speak.
MR. EVANSthought that the noble Lord had misapprehended the Amendment before the House. The normal state of things would be that a Bill would go automatically upstairs after Second Reading; and the only effect of the Amendment was that it would be necessary to have a discussion upon Motion made as to whether the Bill should be retained in the full House or go upstairs. The Member for the City of London had said that if the Amendment were not carried discussion would be crushed; but he would remind the hon. Baronet that at present if a Bill had passed its Second Reading it automatically went to the Committee without discussion.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: thought that it would be much better if they were allowed on every occasion to decide after debate under a ten minutes regulation whether the Bill was to be kept in the House or sent to a Committee upstairs. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister that they should not have a full-dress debate as to whether a Bill should be sent upstairs or kept for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. But

1691
that point was not raised by the Amendment, and he did not think that private Members should be discouraged from endeavouring to get their Bills into Committee upstairs. He suggested that his hon. friend should not press his Amendment to a division. He would have preferred an Amendment which would have given to the House a qualified power of debate.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthen moved the Amendment which he had read to the House earlier in the day.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 3, after the words 'otherwise order,' to insert the words 'and such a Motion shall not require notice, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that while he recognised the desire of the Prime Minister to meet the views of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to adopt the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition as to something in the nature of a ten minutes rule for discussing whether a Bill should be sent upstairs or retained for consideration in Committee of the Whole House. There might be a Bill on which there was unanimity of opinion in regard to its general principles, but a wide difference of opinion in regard to some details. He himself had had charge of such Bills, and some of the clauses had been opposed on non-Party lines. The course of the debate on the Second Reading of a Bill of that kind would be quite different from a debate upon a Bill referred to a Grand Committee. If the Prime Minister would alter his Amendment so as to allow two short speeches, one for and the other against the Motion, it would remove a good deal of his opposition.
MR. STUART WORTLEYwas understood to ask whether under the wording of the Resolution the Motion could be made on a subsequent day. It was desirable that Motions in that House should be something more than formalities. He took it that these Motions would be made by the Government—that no private Members would make them, but that they would be brought forward by the Government on behalf of private Members' Bills.
SIR R BANBURYagreed that the effect of the proposal would be that a Bill would remain to be considered by Committee of the Whole House unless the House otherwise ordered. By attempting to go against well-defined rules they found themselves in a dilemma. He thought before they passed these words, they ought to consider them a little more carefully than they had done up to the present. He saw very great difficulty in regard to the matter. Unfortunately there was no Report stage in reference to these Resolutions, but he asked the Prime Minister whether he could not make some small concession to the effect that the Motion should only be made sometime before opposed business came to an end. If it was only to be made after opposed business there would not be a proper opportunity of opposing the Motion. The result of the present proposal would be that they might not get a proper decision of the House, and as he read it that Motion might be made at any hour.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANpointed out that the word "unless" necessarily made the matter a continuous transaction. Unless the House otherwise ordered it would be committed to committing the Bill to a Committee upstairs.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that might be the intention of the Government, but there was nothing, as the Motion stood, to prevent an hon. Member on Wednesday from making a motion in regard to a Bill the Second Reading of which was passed on Tuesday.
MR. EVANS: was certain that the intentions of the Government were quite clear, but it was also perfectly clear that

1693
on a subsequent day a Motion might be made by some private Member for referring a Bill to a Standing Committee. Some notice should, he thought, be given of such a proceeding. The Government said now that the transaction was to be a continuous one, and that the Motion would be moved immediately after the Second Reading, but the proposal before the House did not make that certain. He suggested that if there was a loophole it could be provided against by inserting words to the effect that such Motion must be made immediately after the Bill had been read a second time.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that whilst he agreed with the hon. and learned Member that the words suggested would avoid a considerable amount of difficulty in the future, he thought before introducing them the House ought to consider whether it was necessary to give notice or not. His own view was that notice ought to be given. He thought that when Members came down on a Friday afternoon to vote for or against a Bill, they ought to know what the intention of the mover was with regard to it. It was extremely desirable, therefore, that a notice should be put on the Paper as to what that intention was. The House should also consider whether there ought not to be a notice on the Paper at the time of the Second Reading of Government Bills to show what was the view of the Government. It was an old practice in regard to Committees to put a notice on the Paper saying to what Committee a Bill, when read a second time, should go. It was never compulsory, it was true, but it was efficient, and there was a good deal to be said in favour of the practice, so that the House might know where it was. There was a more important point upon the general question in regard to which he would like an explanation if the Government would give it. The first paragraph of the new Standing Order as now proposed stated categorically that one of only two things could happen after a Bill had received its Second Reading. Either the Bill automatically went to a Committee, or by a decision of the House it was kept in Committee of the Whole House. Paragraph 1
1694
contained the proposal of no other alternative, but paragraph 2 contemplated a third alternative, and he did not see the interstice in the procedure into which that alternative could find its way. How was a Member who desired to refer half his Bill to a Committee and to keep half in the House to make a Motion to that effect? Where was the interstice in the procedure for the facilities of paragraph 2 after the passing of paragraph 1? This was not a question of policy, but of drafting, and he thought it was a defect in drafting which the Government would do well to consider.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought it would be sufficient to insert the words "provided that" at the commencement of paragraph 2.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether it would not be necessary to insert words in paragraph 1.
MR. EVANSsaid it would be sufficient if paragraph 2 commenced with the words "provided that."
MR. RAWLINSONasked whether it would not be better to put some saving words in paragraph 1 such as "saving as hereinafter provided" after the word "debate" and before the words "otherwise ordered."
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that if no Motion was made the House would commit the Bill upstairs. That procedure would, of course, be restricted by a proper method of reversing the decision afterwards. In ordinary cases it would be decided that the Bill should be referred to one of the Standing Committees. That would create the necessity for proceeding immediately if it was wished to prevent that being done. He did not see the necessity for the words suggested, but if the rule was not thought to be perfectly clear he was prepared to accept an Amendment to meet the point that the matter might be hung up and a Motion surreptitiously made to the great inconvenience of the House. He did not see that the power of the Government would be increased by the addition of the words suggested, and he thought it was better

1695
to leave the matter to the decision of the House. He would be disposed to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend.
MR. FORSTERdid not see how, in the rule which the Prime Minister had submitted to the House, they were going to send a Bill to a Select Committee. Under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman every Bill would stand referred to a Standing Committee, unless the House "otherwise ordered." It seemed to him that they might find some considerable difficulty where there were two Members, one anxious that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, and the other anxious to keep it in the House. Which was to have priority? He did not gather that more than one Motion could be made after the Bill had been read a second time. It seemed to him that it would be a matter of luck or arrangement which Member was able to make the Motion which would decide the subsequent fate of the Bill. That was a point which no doubt the Prime Minister had considered, and doubtless could enlighten them upon.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the sending of a Bill to a Select Committee had always been a separate transaction. It was not a very usual course, and was the subject of a separate Motion. It would be quite possible, he should think, after the House had allowed the Bill to go to one of the Standing Committees, for a Motion to be made, either on the same day or any other day, that such a Bill, instead of being committed to the Standing Committee in accordance with such decision, should be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether that was possible according to their rules? The Bill, by hypothesis, had gone to Grand Committee or Committee of the Whole House as the case might be. At all events the whole thing had been settled after the Second Reading. How then was it to be withdrawn by a separate Motion? He did not think that when Committee of the Whole House was seised of a Bill it was possible to send it to a Select Committee.
1696
Was it proper to ask the counsel of Mr. Speaker on that point? Was it competent for a Member of the House, after a Bill had actually been sent to Grand Committee, or when it was actually in Committee of the Whole House in ordinary practice, then to send it to a Select Committee? He did not remember that ever having been done.
MR. SPEAKER: It would be necessary to discharge the original Order, and the House could order the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee. Of course, the hon. Member who wished to do that would have to find his own time for making the Motion.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the Member in charge of the Bill would not make a Motion, then automatically the Bill went upstairs. What Order was there to discharge in that case?
MR. SPEAKER: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was asking what is the present practice. I cannot say what will be done; that is for the House to settle now. As to the present practice, if a Bill has been ordered to Grand Committee or committed to Committee of the Whole House, in that case it would be necessary for the hon. Member to move to discharge that particular Order, and to ask the House to send the Bill to a Select Committee. But, as I have said, the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill would have to find his own time for doing that. He cannot simply put the Motion down and take it at the commencement of business, or at any other time; he must find his own time. What the practice will be after this Standing Order comes into force is another matter. That is what the House is considering, and it is for the House to settle it.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that if, as the Prime Minister had just said, a Member could move afterwards to have a Bill referred to a

1697
House. He thought some amending words should be inserted so as to afford Members an opportunity of moving that a Bill be sent to a Select Committee, That would be a less cumbrous proceeding than that of asking the House to discharge a previous order, especially when there would be no time to move the Motion, as appeared to be the case under the proposal now before them. As to the question of notice, he did not know that it was necessarily an objection to Members on that side of the House that it would strengthen the Government. Both sides of the House had turns of Government alternately, and the rules which benefited one side would in turn benefit the other. Still, he could not see himself that it would be any great benefit to the Government, but notice would be of considerable advantage to many private Members of the House, and would enable them to form a decision whether they would give a Bill a Second Reading or not. It might be that they would be perfectly ready to give it a Second Reading, if they knew that it was to remain in Committee of the Whole House, and that it was not probable it would go any further. But if they knew that it was to go to Grand Committee they might possibly refuse a Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, he thought notice was to the advantage of private Members. He suggested that there should be further consideration of the matter in order that it might be made clear.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the matter seemed to him to be full of difficulty, but he believed the correct view to be that the reference of Bills to Standing Committees would really be in the same position as the reference of Bills, under the present procedure, to a Committee of the Whole House. Reference of Bills to Standing Committees would not require to be moved. If they wanted to do anything with them afterwards they would have to make a Motion to the effect "That the order for the said Committee be discharged, "etc, and that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, or a hybrid Committee, or whatever they thought proper. He doubted whether the proposed Standing Order permitted of a
1698
Motion being made to refer a Bill to a Select Committee, because it merely said, "unless the House…otherwise order." He regretted that the Prime Minister should have introduced the idea that such a Motion might be made on a subsequent day. He could quite conceive that their might be negotiations, and that the Government did not want to shut the door on them; but they would not be able to discharge the original reference without practically a full-dress debate, although everybody might wish to have such a change made.
EARL PERCYsaid he did not gather that the Prime Minister's answers really met the point raised by his hon. friend behind him. His point was that when a Bill had been read a second time, it was competent for any Member to move that the Bill, instead of being kept in Committee of the Whole House, should be referred to some other Committee. There was nothing in the rule providing that the Member in charge of a Bill should have a prior right to move to which Committee it should be sent. It was an absurd position that some other Member might move that a private Member's Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee upstairs. That question was to be decided without discussion, and the private Member who was in charge of the Bill would have no opportunity of making the Motion that it should be sent to a Select Committee. Surely that point ought to be met.
SIR HENRY FOWLERpointed out that no Motion was required for referring a Bill to a Standing Committee.
EARL PERCYsaid he had made a mistake in that respect, but he would put it in this way. Supposing an hon. Member moved that it should not be sent to a Standing Committee but be kept in Committee of the Whole House?
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he would deal with the present practice first. Under the present practice, when a Bill had been read a second time it stood committed to a Committee of the Whole House for a day that was named by the hon. Member in charge, unless the House, on Motion

1699
made, resolved that the Bill be committed to some other kind of Committee. "Otherwise order" covered any kind of Committee. It was open to move the reference of a Bill to a Select Committee, which after all, was a very rare proceeding, and generally was the subject of agreement. If the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, or any other Member, desired the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, or a Joint Committee, then the hon. Member made the Motion after the Second Reading. That Motion could be made without notice.
EARL PERCYsaid the mere fact that there was no debate precluded the Member in charge of the Bill from stating whether he wished it to be sent to a Select Committee.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that after all they were dealing with an imaginary state of things, because Members of the House, long before a Second Reading debate concluded, knew whether a Bill was going to remain in the House. The five o'clock Bills on Friday afternoons generally went to Standing Committees; their promoters were eager to send them there. The real difficulty was with regard to Government Bills. It was the intention of the Government that all important controversial Bills should be discussed in the House, and not in Grand Committee. The Amendment before them was to decide whether there was to be a debate upon the question, but the Government had stated their view, and it was not necessary to repeat it. He thought it was the better course that there should be no Amendment and no debate, because the House would be fully aware of the nature of the Bill and quite competent to decide whether it should go upstairs or remain in the House. To give opportunity for debate would be to perpetuate the evil which they wanted to avoid, viz., the danger of delaying the progress of business by having practically another Second Reading debate.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLhoped the House would be careful not to do anything which would prejudice referring Bills to a Select Committee. He would remind hon. Members that
1700
so recently as last session the Provision of Meals Bill was referred to a Select Committee and after being amended, was now law, and, as he thought, a most salutary law.
MR. EVANSformally moved to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "Such Motion must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time.' "—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the Prime Minister's Amendment practically accepted the insertion of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan; but they had not had any answer to the question, in the event of the Bill under the new rules being sent to a Committee and there being a desire that it should not go to a Grand Committee but to a Select Committee by what process they could undo the action the House had taken and relegate the Bill to a Select Committee.
SIR F. BANBURYwas anxious to know what would happen in case two hon. Members desired to make a Motion, one that a particular measure should go to a Select Committee and the other that it should be retained for a Committee of the Whole House. How was it to be decided which Member would be called upon first? If the hon. Member who wished the Bill sent to a Select Committee carried his Motion, the second hon. Member who desired a Committee of the Whole House would, by a mere accident, be cut out altogether. If the Amendment of his hon. friend was inserted it would then be impossible for any hon. Member to move that the order be discharged and the Bill committed to another Committee, because they would be face to face with this new Standing Order, which declared that no Motion of

1701
that kind might be made except immediately after the Second Reading. The Prime Minister had not answered the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. In his opinion the point was in fact unanswerable.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANdid not think the hon. Baronet would be so bewildered under the new rule as he expected. When a Bill was read a second time it would go, unless otherwise directed, to a Standing Committee. His right hon. friend had read the rules of procedure and shown how they dealt with the case of an hon. Member who wished a Bill to go to a Select Committee. The hon. Baronet had asked what would happen when the particular partisan for a Committee of the Whole House and the partisan for a Select Committee rose together. All he needed to say was that if the person in charge moved that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee instead of to a Standing Committee the House would decide the matter by a division, and if it decided against a Select Committee the Member in charge of the Bill would move his Motion and the House would vote upon it.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he still very much objected to the proposal that the Motion must be made immediately after the discussion on the Second Reading. He considered that it was a fetter upon the liberty of hon. Members, and he did not see why the House should not be free to entertain upon a subsequent day a Motion of which it should receive full notice. They might find that the Standing Committees were blocked with business, and in such an event it might be in the interests of the progress of business that a particular measure should be kept downstairs.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the Prime Minister had stated that it was quite easy for the second hon. Member to move that a Bill should go to a Committee of the Whole House. He wished to remind the right hon. Gentle-
1702
man that they had already decided that the Motion must be made without Amendment or debate. Now it was stated that they could vote upon the two issues. He thought the difficulty which had been put forward by the hon. Baronet was a real one. They ought to remember that the provisions read out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were those given in the book which regulated their procedure, but they did not form part of the Standing Orders of the House. As they were told last year in connection with the change in the divisions, Standing Orders took precedence of mere usage, and when they had amongst their rules a Standing Order like that now proposed they would be ruled entirely by it. The additional words would preclude any interchange of opinion on the part of the House.
MR. CAVEsaid if the proposed words were inserted at the place suggested they would only regulate Paragraph (1) of the new rule, leaving Paragraph (2) still an open question. Would it not save a great deal of time if the same provision were applied to both paragraphs? He suggested that the words should be put in after Paragraph (2) as a sub-paragraph. If his suggestion were accepted the Amendment could be withdrawn, and they would have a little more time to consider what form of words should be inserted.
MR. EVANSsaid the course suggested by the hon. Member was neither necessary nor convenient. Words could be introduced after Paragraph (2) to make quite clear the procedure to be followed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsuggested that Paragraph (2) might be slightly expanded by the insertion of the following words: "Provided always that the House may on Motion made by the Member in charge of the Bill commit the Bill either to a Select Committee, or a Standing Committee," and forth. He thought that would get over the whole difficulty.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes. 284; Noes, 68. (Division List No. 95.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Davies. Timothy (Fulham)

Jackson, R. S.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Ainsworth. John Stirling

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jardine, Sir J.

Alden, Percy

Dickinson, W. H.(St.Pancras, N

Jenkins, J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ambrose, Robert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Duckworth, James

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Astbury, John Meir

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jowett, F. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, K.)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Master of

Laidlaw, Robert

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Barker, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lambert, George

Barnard, E. B.

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Evans, Samuel T.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Beale, W. P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Ferguson. R. C. Munro

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Levy, Maurice

Bennett, E. N.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lewis, John Herbert

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bertram, Julius

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lough, Thomas

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lundon, W.

Billson, Alfred

Gill, A. H.

Lupton, Arnold

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ginnell, L.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lynch, H. B.

Boland, John

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Bowerman, C. W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brace, William

Grant, Corrie

Macpherson, J. T.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Branch, James

Gulland, John W.

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Brigg, John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Callum, John M.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

M'Crae, George

Brooke, Stopford

Hall, Frederick

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Bryce, J. Annan

Halpin, J.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marnham, F. J.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Massie, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Harwood, George

Micklem, Nathaniel

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mond, A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E. S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mooney, J. J.

Clarke, C.: Goddard

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Cleland, J. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Clough, William

Henry, Charles S.

Morrell, Philip

Clynes, J. R.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murphy, John

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Highaml, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nolan, Joseph

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Cooper, G. J.

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Holland Sir William Henry

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cory, Clifford John

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Grady, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cowan, W. H.

Hudson, Walter

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Cox, Harold

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Malley, William

Crombie, John William

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Paul, Herbert.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ure, Alexander

Paulton, James Mellor

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Verney, F. W.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Sears, J. E.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Seaverns, J. H.

Vivian, Henry

Pearson, W. H. M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wadsworth, J.

Philipps, Owen C. Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sheehy, David

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Price, C. E. (Edinb' gh, Central)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Priestley. W.E.B.(Bradford, E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wardle, George J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Waring, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Weir, James Galloway

Redmond, William (Clare)

Snowden, P.

Whitbread, Howard

Rees, J. D.

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Whitehead, Rowland

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

Steadman, W. C.

Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

Richardson, A.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Williams, Llewellyn(Carmarth'n

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williamson, A.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Summerbell, T.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Robson. Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Winfrey, R.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Pease.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, RtHn.SirAlex. F.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T.(Londonderry, N.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Helmsley, Viscount

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds

Starkey, John R.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Liddell, Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingham'

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin, S.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir

Cross, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Frederick Banbury and Mr.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stanley Wilson.

Words, as amended, inserted.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYmoved an Amendment providing that a Bill introduced by a private Member and obtaining a Second Reading after the expiration of opposed business should not be subsequently adopted by the Government and taken at any time set apart for Government business. He said that the Amendment was frankly designed to prevent the Government adopting any
1706
Bill brought forward by a private Member. Some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House thought they had reason to complain of the Government having done that last session. His object was to make it clear that where a private Member's Bill had benefited by the Standing Order, and had obtained a Second Reading, that Bill was not to be taken up by the Government at any time set apart for Government business. That was only fair play, for there was

1707
considerable danger of private Members in that way giving Governments more power than they already possessed. There might be no objection to allowing a private Member's Bill to be read a second time, but the Government ought not to be allowed to swoop down and take up a Bill, which might be of Party advantage, as their own. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment in the spirit in which it was moved.
MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"After the words last inserted, to insert the words 'but no Bill introduced by a private Member and obtaining a Second Reading after the expiration of the time of opposed business shall be taken at any time set apart for Government business.' "—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that he could not accept the Amendment. The Government would, by it, be deprived of all power of starring Bills or of giving facilities to pass Bills which practically the whole House desired to pass. The Musical Copyright Bill, for instance, could not have been got through under this Amendment.
SIR F. BANBURYreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading of the Musical Copyright Bill had been obtained in the ordinary way and the measure sent to Committee upstairs. The Amendment of his right hon. and gallant friend would not affect any Bill which had been properly discussed. He maintained that if a private Member's Bill had not been fully discussed on Second Reading it should not be sent to a Committee upstairs and afterwards starred by the Government. That gave the Government a double advantage, and it must be remembered that the rules of procedure were all designed to give facilities to the Government of the day. He begged to support the Amendment.
MR. EVANSsaid that the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member was
1708
entirely outside the province of the rules of procedure. Nobody desired to curtail the right of private Members to say to what Committees the Bills which they introduced and for which they had obtained a Second Reading should go.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that although the object of the Amendment might be to some extent outside the rules of procedure, it must also be admitted that a considerable change had been made by the Amendment of the Prime Minister which proposed to extend facilities for the passage of Bills after the Second Reading had been taken. Of course, there were great difficulties in the way of the proposal of his right hon. and gallant friend; but there might be another way of meeting them. What his right hon. and gallant friend wanted to deal with was not the case of a non-contentious Bill which got a Second Reading with the general consent of the House, and he would alter his Amendment to meet such a case. It was felt on both sides of the House, and certainly by hon. Gentleman who sat beside and behind him, that there were two different courses of procedure—a Government procedure and a private Members' procedure. They had always felt that if they were going to facilitate the passage of a private Member's Bill there ought to be some intimation that the Government intended to adopt it. It was quite obvious that a Bill like the Land Tenure Bill could not have been passed into law unless the Government had taken it up. In his opinion the Government ought not to take up private Members' Bills at a late period of the session, and he thought it would be fairer to minorities if some protection were given to them, as would be done if the Amendment were adopted.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was quite impossible; for a Government to say in the earlier stages of a Bill whether they would adopt it or not. A Bill might be turned inside out during the Committee stage, and until that process had been gone through, no Government could determine whether the Bill should in their judgment be passed into law or not; nor did he see why the mere fact of a Bill

1709
going through its Second Reading without discussion or objection should be regarded as a bar sinister to its continuance; rather it seemed to him to be a recommendation. Of course a Bill might slip through accidentally when no one was looking, but that would be known long before the question could arise of its being taken up by the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOURhoped the right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying that the Amendment proposed by his right hon. friend would not have been brought forward if it had not been for the unfortunate deviation of the Government from the general practice last session. That aroused the jealousy which had prompted the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that it was difficult to demarcate the conditions and to lay down a general line in regard to the stage at which it was possible for the Government to decide whether or not they should take up a Bill. It would be unfortunate if a Government were precluded from taking up Bills towards the end of the session, and if the Government had adhered to the ordinary and natural practice which had prevailed in the House the Amendment would not have been moved. He agreed that it was impossible to tell on Second Reading whether a Bill ought or ought not to be adopted by the Government, because in Committee it might assume another form. That argument had force, but so had the opposing argument, in regard to the practice which had grown up. Mr. Speaker's predecessors in the Chair had made it a common, though not an invariable practice, to give the closure at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon to a private Bill which they would never have given after a brief discussion to a Bill introduced by the Government. He was quite certain that neither Mr. Speaker Peel, nor Mr. Speaker Gully would ever have given the closure in the case of many private Bills, had it been the habit of the Government at a later stage to take up those Bills; they would have been guided in giving or withholding the closure by the character of the Bills and the policy which the Government were likely to adopt with regard to them. Un-
1710
less the Government announced on the Second Reading what their policy would be with regard to a measure, it was quite impossible for the occupant of the Chair to know what course he ought to take. Was he to treat it as embodying a Resolution of the House in a concrete form, or was he to treat it as the first great stage of a controversial measure? His right hon. friend took the view that the Government should be precluded from taking up any private Bill, and that was expressed in his Amendment. [Cries of "No."] What he wanted was to have some method by which they would be able to draw a line between those Bills which were to be taken up and those which were not to be taken up. There were hon. Gentlemen who would cut down the limits of debate in Committee. But if they were going to curtail debate on Second Reading as well, by means of the closure, the control which the House had over legislation would be reduced to impossible narrowness. The Government could hardly complain of an attempt to deal with an evil which last session reached formidable proportions.
LORD R. CECILthought the form of the Amendment would not secure the end they desired. He held quite as strongly as his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition that for the Government to adopt private Members' Bills which had been passed at an afternoon sitting late in the session was a great abuse of Parliamentary procedure, especially in the way in which it was done last session. But this Amendment would not make a repetition of last session's proceedings impossible. It would, however, prevent the passing of useful measures such as the Musical Copyright Bill and the Solicitors Bill which were starred by the Government. He hoped the Amendment therefore would not be pressed.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that if the Amendment had been received in the sympathetic spirit in which he had hoped it would be, and if there had been any encouragement of the view which he sought to bring forward, he would not have divided the House. But having re-

1711
gard to the reception which had been accorded to his proposal he would divide the House as a protest against the action of the Government last session.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 277. (Division List No. 96.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,RtHnSir Alex.F.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Percy, Earl

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour,Rt Hn.A.J.(CityLond)

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford. W. W. (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Gordon,Sir W.Evans-(T'rHam.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thornton, Percy M.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Wilson, A Stanley(York, E. R.)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Liddell, Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Collings, Rt. Hon.J.(Birmingh'm

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Colonel Kenyon-Slaney and

Craik, Sir Henry

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Captain Harvey.

Cross, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peterfield)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Brooke, Stopford

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Bryce, J. Annan

Elibank, Master of

Acland, Francis Dyke

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Erskine, David C.

Agnew, George William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Essex, R. W.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Evans, Samuel T.

Alden, Percy

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Everett, R. Lacey

Ambrose, Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ferens, T. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Astbury, John Meir

Cheetham, John Frederick

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cleland, J. W.

Gill, A. H.

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Clough, William

Ginnell, L.

Barker, John

Clynes, J. R.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Barnard, E. B.

Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Glover, Thomas

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Beale, W. P.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, George Peabody

Beauchamp, E.

Corbett, CH.(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Grant, Corrie

Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bennett, E. N.

Cory, Clifford John

Gulland, John W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cowan, W. H.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Bertram, Julius

Cox, Harold

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cremer, William Randal

Hall, Frederick

Billson, Alfred

Crombie, John William

Halpin, J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cullinan, J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Black, Arthur W.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hardie, J Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Boland, John

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras, N.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bowerman, C. W.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E.

Brace, William

Duckworth, James

Harwood, George

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Branch, James

Dunne, Major E.Martin(Walsall

Hayden, John Patrick

Brigg, John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hedges, A. Paget

Hemmerde, Edward George

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Henderson, J. M.(Aberdeen, W.)

Mason, A. E. W (Coventry)

Sears, J. E.

Henry, Charles S.

Massie, J.

Seaverns, J. H.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seely, Major J. B.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Shackleton, David James

Higham, John Sharp

Mond, A.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sheehy, David

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montagu, E. S.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Hodge, John

Mooney, J. J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hope, W Bateman(Somerset, N.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Morrell, Philip

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Snowden, P.

Hudson, Walter

Murphy, John

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Nicholson, Charles N(Doncaster

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nolan, Joseph

Steadman, W. C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jenkins, J.

O'Grady, J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Summerbell, T.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jones, Sir D Brynmor(Swansea)

O'Malley, William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Mara, James

Taylor, Theodore, C. (Radcliffe)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Talyor, John W. (Durham)

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Taylor, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paul, Herbert

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Paulton, James Mellor

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Vivian, Henry

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wadsworth, J.

Lamont, Norman

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St.Pancras, E.)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Lehmann, R. C.

Radford, G. H.

Wardle, George J.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Waring, Walter

Levy, Maurice

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Weir, James Galloway

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitbread, Howard

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Whitehead, Rowland

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Lynch, H. B.

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Wiles, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

Wilkie, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Rickett, J. Compton

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'th'n)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Williamson, A.

Macpherson, J. T.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Winfrey, R.

M'Callum, John M.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

M'Crae, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Runciman, Walter

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Pease.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

MR. RAWLINSONmoved an Amendment to include among the Bills to which the Standing Order should not apply Bills imposing rates or charges on rates, as well as Bills for imposing taxes. He thought the Government would have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment, as it followed the principle they had already adopted. If he remembered rightly, Mr. Speaker last year with regard to some Amendments that came down from the House of Lords ruled that the power which
1714
admittedly existed in this House with regard to taxation also existed with regard to any Bill which contained a clause imposing rates. If he was right, rates also came within the exception made by the Government. The whole basis of the exception introduced in the Government proposal was the principle that anything that imposed taxation should not be dealt with by a Committee upstairs but should have the benefit of a discussion in Committee

1715
of the whole House. He submitted that the principle was the same with regard to any clause in a Bill that imposed rates. He begged to move.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment. Although the Government might reply that it was not the function of the House to impose rates, yet the House did impose them indirectly either by giving increased power to municipalities to increase a rate for the purposes of the municipality, or by imposing on the municipalities all over the country a burden, as would have been the case had the Education Bill of last year passed, which necessitated further rates being raised. He therefore submitted that such Bills should not be dealt with by Committees upstairs.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 5, after the word 'taxes,' to insert the words 'or rates or charges on rates.'"—(Mr. Bawlinson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the hon. Gentleman did not say exactly what rates he referred to, but left it to his hon. friend to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the proposal. The House did not impose rates at all except by sanctioning private Bills, which went upstairs and were discussed and decided by a Committee, not of seventy or eighty members, but of four. It would be a novel thing to compare taxes imposed by the House and rates imposed by local authorities for local purposes.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he referred to such rates as those which would have been imposed by the Education Bill—rates imposed for a particular purpose.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the Amendment of the hon. Member raised the question of privilege in respect to the rights of the House in matters of taxation. Those rights were waived in regard to rates, but not with regard to taxes. The point was mixed up with the whole question of local and Imperial taxation, with which he hoped
1716
this House would have to deal. But every power for levying local rates for local purposes would be governed by the Amendment and he could not accept it.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he found it difficult to understand the Answer just given. The right hon. Gentleman had said that every power of local rating would be governed by this Amendment. He knew perfectly well that that was not so. There was all the difference in the world between a rate imposed by a locality within its own urea for its own needs and a rate imposed by all localities in the country, at the instance of the Government, for a particular purpose. Admittedly rates were not constitutionally in the same category as taxes, but practically they were. It made very little difference to those who had to pay them. The Irish Local Government Board, and the English and Scottish Local Government Boards dealt with local taxation, and there was not an Act which dealt with sanitary arrangements, education, local government and other matters, during the last forty years, which had not laid an additional burden on local resources. And what his hon. friend suggested was that if Parliament sought to impose upon the whole of the ratepayers of the country a charge which they were compelled to pay, at all events that decision ought to be arrived at on the floor of the House of Commons and not in Grand Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman said that Parliament did not impose these rates, because it gave the local authorities power to impose them, he was bound to say that while the argument was sound enough from the point of view of sound constitutional doctrine, a more absurd and unpractical argument he could not conceive. They gave to local authorities power to impose certain rates within their areas, and if that was not imposing rates, he did not know what was. When people resisted a rate, it was because they preferred to go to prison rather than pay it; but did not that point to the fact that the charge. was a compulsory one; if it was not, he did not know the meaning of a compulsory charge. He thought the Amendment was well founded.
LORD R. CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given two answers to the Amendment. The first was merely technical, that the House did not impose rates. Technically that might be accurate, and, therefore, he would suggest to his hon. friend that he should make his Amendment read, "or raising rates or charges on rates. Beyond that he had not caught any answer from the right hon. Gentleman, except that there was a constitutional distinction between taxes and rates. He could not think that a sufficient answer to the Amendment. Let him point out to the House the position in which they really were. The Government clearly thought that some Bills ought to be considered in the House and not upstairs, and therefore they had inserted the exception, leaving out of the effect of the Standing Order Bills for imposing taxes and the like. If that was right, it must mean that anything which would increase the burden on the people ought to be a matter for the consideration of the House alone. That was an intelligible principle, but it was a principle which applied equally to rates and to taxes. There seemed to be an impression on the other side that rates and taxes were very different things. Any proposal which would have the effect of increasing the rates prima facie attracted the support of the benches opposite. He could never understand why, in the least. On the other hand, any proposal which was thought, even lightly, to burden the taxpayers was rejected by the stringent economists opposite. He could not understand the reason at all why in our legislation this distinction had been made between rates and taxes, which, as a matter of economics, were precisely the same thing. Every one of the evils which followed from an undue excess of taxation followed equally from an undue increase of rates. They had heard the other day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the causes of the lowness of money—if lowness was the proper word to use—was the expenditure on the late war which had been charged upon the taxes by the late Government. Whether that was right or wrong he did not know, but if it were right, it was equally true that the
1718
expenditure of municipalities for the last ten years was a contributory cause of the great burdens which had been put on the financial resources of the country. Therefore, if it was right, and he certainly thought it was right, that Bills imposing taxes should be excluded from this rule, it was equally right, indeed in some ways more essential, that Bills imposing charges on rates should also be excluded.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Walton,said the Amendment had the double fault of being wrong in form and wrong in substance. He rather gathered from the noble Lord that he himself thought it could not be sustained in the form in which it was moved. It confused what, from a Parliamentary point of view, were two distinct classes of measures, namely, financial measures which originated in Committee of Ways and Means, and imposed charges by the Imperial authority, and measures which dealt with local assessments and the imposing of local burdens which were due to the action of local bodies. But the Amendment was also wrong in substance. The very Bills which were most complicated, which involved the exercise of the greatest amount of technical knowledge, would be excluded from Grand Committees. The Public Health Act of 1875, for instance, which bristled with technicalities, could not possibly have been dealt with in the House within the limits of a session.
AN HON. MEMBER: It was.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he would not say it was impossible, because all things were possible; but under certain conditions, and with obstacles in the way, it would be impossible to discuss such a measure in the House. Bills providing for housing, giving local authorities fresh powers for dealing with sewers,—all entailing large outlay of money and the raising of rates—were the very Bills the tedious details of which ought to be thoroughly thrashed out by a Committee upstairs, but the proposed Amendment would exclude them from the rule.
MR. STUART WORTLEYwas understood to contend that the Bills in question involved a diminution of public resources, whether in the form of Imperial taxes or public loans, and hence the Government Departments concerned had to consult the Treasury, whose consent was necessary. The same reason applied to Bills imposing local charges, which meant a diminution of public resources, and the House ought to be very jealous of parting with the control of any measure involving a question of the diminution of the public resources.
MR. EVANSsaid it was assumed that the result of the rule would be that all Bills of this kind must go upstairs. But such measures as the Education Bill of last year and that of 1902 were highly controversial, and, according to the principle laid down by the Prime Minister, would not be sent to a Committee upstairs. Under the Amendment, if carried, it would be absolutely necessary to send every rating Bill, however small, into Committee of the Whole House. An Amendment had already been proposed to the effect that all Bills dealing with finance should be excluded. It was quite true that all the money both for taxation and for local purposes came out of the ratepayers' pocket, and it was equally true that a great many people were very much interested in the diminution of the rates. He remembered on one occasion going to the Ladies' Gallery, and a lady asked him what they were talking about in the House. He told her, and she replied, "That is not interesting; why do not they talk about the rates?" If the Amendment were carried it would be absolutely necessary that any Bill touching the rating question in any form should be discussed in Committee of the Whole House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman would now see that he had raised one of the most difficult points they had to deal with. He had told them that the Government did not mean to send controversial measures to Grand Committee, but they had not got that embodied in the Standing Order. He had no doubt the Prime Minister would carry out his declared intention, but a subsequent
1720
Government might say that circumstance had altered, and they intended to apply the rule as far as the actual words of the section permitted. It was for that reason that his friends were naturally desirous of seeing the explicit exceptions mad as numerous and clear as they could be This Amendment, however, would want some modification. Rating Bills fell into two classes, Bills which permitted localities to impose rates for their own particular advantage, and Bills which imposed a duty on a locality, such as the duty of educating its children, and gave the right of raising rates to carry out that duty. Would anybody deny that the second class of Bills was not analogous to taxing Bills? Was there not also strong reason for exempting from the Standing Order anything which the House of Lords was precluded from dealing with in detail? Were they not bound to see that Bills which could not be revised elsewhere should come before the House in the most effective fashion? A Bill might impose rating whilst the rest of the measure might deal with matters of detail which could very properly be discussed in Grand Committee. Surely it was only right that they should be able to deal with that part of a measure which imposed rating, and which could not be amended in another place, by providing, under the second paragraph, that the rating clauses of the Bill should remain to be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House. Whilst agreeing that his hon. friend's Amendment needed some modification, he regretted that the Government had shown no desire to help them, and had in fact met them with a blank non possumus.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the discussion had taken two separate lines. In the first place there was the general question of the nature of the Bills which ought to be referred to the Committee upstairs; and, secondly, there was the particular question whether the subjects pointed to in this Amendment were to be made an exception to the general rule. On the larger question he had explained so often what the position and intention of the Government was that it seemed almost absurd to keep on repeating it. Hon. Members could not get it out of their heads that the Grand Committee

1721
was to be brought into play only in the case of absolutely innocent and what were called uncontroversial Bills. If they were only to send to Standing Committees uncontroversial Bills, it would not be worth while their introducing these Resolutions, because every Bill was or might become controversial. What they had said was that the great controversial Party measures of the session promoted by the Government should be exempted. This was the first, of a series of Amendments which had been put down to except Bills of one kind or another. There were seldom cases in which two Members had suggested the same Amendment. There seemed to be a sort of co-operation to spread the advantages of treatment in the House of Commons over as large an area as possible. They were to exempt everything that had to do with rating, with Parliamentary reform or the franchise, with the powers of the Crown or either House of Parliament, the Army or Reserve Forces, or the Navy; they were to exempt Bills which aroused strong political controversy or excited acute religious susceptibilities, Bills which dealt with the Constitution of any of the Colonies, and with the redistribution of seats at Parliamentary elections. There was no reason why they should stop there. Why should an hon. Member not get up and move that no Bill should be referred to a Committee upstairs that had to do with a deceased wife's sister, or with the preservation of game, and in that way so exhaust the whole area of legislation that nothing would be left to go to the Committee upstairs? The Government could not accept any of these things which vitiated the whole conception that underlay their proposed scheme of procedure. As to the present Amendment, every one would understand the difference between an Imperial tax imposed by an Imperial law and the effect of powers given to local authorities to discharge certain public functions which would involve the imposition of a rate. There was hardly a Bill introduced dealing with a domestic subject in which the well-trained nose could not without much difficulty sniff a rate. The Amendment was no doubt very ingenious and plausible, but it would so narrow the field of legislation that could
1722
be dealt with by a Standing Committee that it would make the rules practically inoperative.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask a non-controversial Question? Could the Government favourably consider some method by which on the Report Stage this House could deal with rating questions? At present it is out of order for the House to deal with rating questions on Report.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bill could be recommitted for that purpose.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Partially upstairs, and partially here.
MR. WILLAM RUTHERFORDsaid that no words had been proposed by the Government to show what Bills should or should not go to the Grand Committees. On the contrary, the Prime Minister had just told the House that the Government would not accept any of the Amendments on the Paper.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Any of those Amendments which except from the operation of the Standing Order certain kinds of Bills.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he quite understood. He suggested that Bills which involved taxation, whether by taxes imposed directly by Parliament or by local rates, should be dealt with by Committee of the Whole House. It was just exactly that class of legislation which gave to local authorities the power to lay fresh imposts on the people which a large number of people in the country thought should be restricted. The rates had grown to such a point in some districts that practically speaking they were at the breaking point. For hundreds of years it had been the exclusive privilege of the House of Commons in Committee to deal in detail with questions which involved imposts on the people. It was now proposed for the first time by this Standing Order to take away from the House as a whole a

1723
right which was one of the privileges of the Constitution, namely, that every Act of Parliament which involved a charge on the people should be debated in detail by the people's representatives. They ought to pay more attention to the historical and immemorial rights of the House sitting in Committee. He would support the Amendment.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 253; Noes, 58. (Division List No. 97.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Cowan, W. H.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cox, Harold

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Acland, Francis Dyke

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hudson, Walter

Agnew, George William

Cremer, William Randal

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crombie, John William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Alden, Percy

Crooks, William

Jackson, R. S.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cullinan, J.

Jardine, Sir J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jenkins, J.

Ambrose, Robert

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Astbury, John Meir

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Jowett, F. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kekewich, Sir George

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Master of

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Erskine, David C.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Barker, John

Essex, R. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Barnard, E. B.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Barnes, G. N.

Evans, Samuel T.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambert, George

Beauchamp, E.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lamont, Norman

Bell, Richard

Ferens, T. R.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accr'gton)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Dev'np't

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lehmann, R. C.

Benn, W (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Bennett, E.N.

Gill, A. H.

Levy, Maurice

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ginnell, L.

Lewis, John Herbert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lough, Thomas

Billson, Alfred

Glover, Thomas

Lynch. H. B.

Black, Arthur W.

Gooch, George Peabody

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Boland, John

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macpherson, J. T.

Bowerman, C. W.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Brace, William

Gulland, John W.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Callum, John M.

Branch, James

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

M'Crae, George

Brigg, John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Hall, Frederick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Bryce, J. Annan

Halpin, J.

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Marnham, F. J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Massie, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N. E

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Byles, William Pollard

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Montagu, E.S.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Mooney, J. J.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Clarke, C. Goddard

Henry, Charles S.

Myer, Horatio

Cleland, J. W.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Clough, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Clynes, J. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Nolan, Joseph

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

Hodge, John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Grady, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hooper, A. G.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Rogers. F. E. Newman

Verney, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Vivian, Henry

O'Mara, James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wadsworth, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Partington, Oswald

Scott, A. H(Ashton-under-Lyne

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

Paul, Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Seaverns, J. H.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shackleton, David James

Wardle, George J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Waring, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sheehy, David

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Waterlow, D. S.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Weir, James Galloway

Radford, G. H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitehead, Rowland

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Steadman, W. C.

Wiles, Thomas

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wilkie, Alexander

Redmond, William (Clare)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Rees, J. D.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Summerbell, T.

Winfrey, R.

Richardson, A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Rickett, J. Compton

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Robinson, S.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Pease.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ure, Alexander

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fletcher, J. S.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gardner, Ernest (Berks., East)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cave, George

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds)

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thornton, Percy M.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm'gham

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Liddell, Henry

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Viscount Valentia.

Cross, Alexander

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 98.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fell, Arthur

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cave, George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(City Lond

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Forster, Henry William

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Heaton, John Henniker

Bowles, G. Stewart

Craik, Sir Henry

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cross, Alexander

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hunt, Rowland

Bull, Sir William James

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,G'v'n)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Thornton, Percy M.

Liddell, Henry

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Valentia, Viscount

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Nield, Herbert

Starkey, John R.

Tellers for the Ayes—

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Viscount Helmsley and Mr.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Rawlinson.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Cremer, William Randal

Jardine, Sir J.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Crombie, John William

Jenkins, J.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Crooks, William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Agnew, George William

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Alden, Percy

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras, N

Jowett, F. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Ambrose, Robert

Duckworth, James

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Astbury, John Meir

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Atherley-Jones, L.

Elibank, Master of

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Erskine, David C.

Lambert, George

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Essex, R. W.

Lamont, Norman

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Evans, Samuel T.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Barker, John

Everett, R. Lacey

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n

Barnard, E. B.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lehmann, R. C.

Barnes, G. N.

Ferens, T. R.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Levy, Maurice

Beauchamp, E.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lewis, John Herbert

Bell, Richard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lough, Thomas

Bellairs, Carlyon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lynch, H. B.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt

Ginnell, L.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Macpherson, J. T

Bennett, E. N.

Glover, Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gooch, George Peabody

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Grant, Corrie

M'Callum, John M.

Billson, Alfred

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Crae, George

Black, Arthur W.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Boland, John

Gulland, John W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Bowerman, C. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Marnham, F. J.

Brace, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Massie, J.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hall, Frederick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Branch, James

Halpin, J.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Montagu, E. S.

Bryce, J. Annan

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Mooney. J. J

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayden, John Patrick

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hedges, A. Paget

Myer, Horatio

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hemmerde, Edward George

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Byles, William Pollard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Grady, J.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Higham, John Sharp

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Cleland, J. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Clough, William

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Clynes, J. R.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Mara, James

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hooper, A. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

Partington, Oswald

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Paul, Herbert

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Cowan, W. H.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cox, Harold

Illingworth, Percy H.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jackson, R. S.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Pirie, Duncan V.

Seaverns, J. H.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Radford, G. H.

Sheeny, David

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wardle, George J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waring, Walter

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rees, J. D.

Steadman, W. C.

Weir, James Galloway

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpton

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitehead, Rowland

Richardson, A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rickett, J. Compton

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Summerbell, T.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n

Robinson, S.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Winfrey, R.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ure, Alexander

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Verney, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lynn

Vivian, Henry

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Sears, J. E.

Wadsworth, J.

Pease.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.
And, it being after a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.
MR. BENNETTrose to call attention to the incidence of taxation in connection with the question of social reform, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, having regard to the wealth of the United Kingdom and the nature of its distribution, it is necessary to readjust the burden of taxation in order to make provision for social reforms which are urgently needed." He said the terms of the Resolution covered so considerable an area that, so far as he was concerned, he would confine his attention that evening to the incidence of Imperial taxation, without making any attempt to deal with the vexed questions of local rates and taxes—a subject which must of necessity be revised throughout its length and breadth by the present Government before it went out of office. The Liberal Party had been returned to power in order to save the country from the menace of protection and to carry out a genuine programme of social reforms. Some of those reforms would not involve the outlay of public money. Some methods of dealing with the temperance problem,
1730
for example, or, again, laws which endeavoured to cope with the admitted evils of the sweated industries—legislation of that type would make practically no; demand on the pockets of the British taxpayer. On the other hand, it was easy to draw up a list of social reforms which must inevitably come and just as inevitably bring with them fresh demands upon the public purse. He would naturally that evening have accorded a foremost place in his remarks to the almost universal demand in this country for the establishment of some system of old-age pensions, but he was precluded from touching on that topic because of the existence of several Bills which blocked the way. That method of blocking discussion by private Bills which could never under any conceivable circumstances become law was rapidly developing into a fine art, and he ventured to think a very undesirable one. Another social reform, however, which would necessitate additional expenditure from the National Exchequer was the provision of some complete system of secondary and technical education. That reform, he was convinced, must come sooner or later, unless indeed we were prepared as a nation to lag behind in the international race for efficiency. One of the most painful experiences of any modern English traveller was the discovery that in the other countries of the civilised world the aged poor were better treated than they

1731
were in wealthy England, and that the children of the poorer classes enjoyed in other countries far greater equality of opportunity, far more facilities for securing the higher types of education than they did in Great Britain. He felt very strongly on that point, for he had spent a good many years of his life as fellow and tutor of an Oxford college, and no thoughtful resident in one of the older Universities could fail to realise the immense difficulties which stood in the way of any able young man who wished to secure the benefits of a University education. Occasionally a boy struggled up from the board school, but how rarely, and in almost every case the educational ladder was placed against the walls of the University, not by the State, but by the private generosity of some wealthy benefactor who had noticed the boy's abilities and paid for his University career. The social reformer then started with the postulate that much more money was required, and that that could only be furnished by a thorough re-adjustment of taxation. The researches of Sir Robert Giffen, Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. Rowntree, and others had proved conclusively that one-half of the national income was enjoyed by one-ninth of the population—that at one end of the social scale were 8,000,000 of workers earning less than £1a week, and at the other end a tiny fraction, about one-thirtieth of the whole number—some of them workers, others drones, nati consumere fruges, possessing in wealth, or at any rate comfort, one-third of the entire wealth of the country. With these facts before them they found that the actual incidence of taxation, direct and indirect, was almost incredibly unfair. An average working class income from £50 to £80 per annum was taxed at the rate of 7 percent.; an income of £200 at only 4½ per cent.; of £500 at 7 per cent., while larger incomes of £5,000 and over incurred a very slight increase in taxation over the working man's, for they were taxed at only 8½ per cent. No Liberal Government worthy of the name could, he thought, allow that manifest unfairness to continue. The weaker shoulders must be relieved as far as possible of the heavy imposts at present laid upon them, and the stronger shoulders must prepare themselves for the imposition of some additional burdens. He would leave the discussion of land
1732
values, a graduated income-tax, and a revision of the death duties to subsequent speakers, merely remarking in passing that it was now sixty years since John Stuart Mill urged the Government of his day to secure the immediate valuation of site values in Great Britain, in order that all subsequent increments in those values might be available for purposes of taxation. By the failure of successive Governments, Liberal and Conservative, to carry out; such a valuation immense revenues had been lost for ever to the State, for no scheme of taxing land values could be retrospective. As to a graduated income-tax, the average elector might well say that if Pusssia, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark had been able to establish a complete graduation of that tax such a scheme ought not to be beyond the resources of British statesmanship. With respect to the death duties, it was interesting to remember the fierce cries of "confiscation" which were raised against their introduction in 1894. But he did not think that there was a single Member of the House who would now get up on a public platform and denounce the death duties as "confiscation." In fact what was called "confiscation" in one decade became in the next decade a recognised basis for the imposition of fresh taxation of a similar type. And, all said and done, the entire duty levied on the colossal sum bequeathed from the dead to the living in this country did not amount to more than about 6 per cent. of the whole. There existed also another source of national income, practically untapped at present, in connection with the gigantic monopoly of the liquor trade, valued at £250,000,000 sterling. He had recently received a number of letters from innkeepers—which from the amazing similarity in their diction must, he thought, be redactions of some common document furnished by the brewers—and in those letters the liquor trade was described as a harassed industry. He was quite ready to admit that the innkeeper was himself in many cases a harassed individual. The fierce competition of the trade, the tyranny of the tied-house system, and the overbearing treatment often meted out to the publican by the brewery firms—these things frequently rendered it a difficult task for the innkeeper to make a decent living. But to talk of the great brewing and distilling

1733
firms, who were allowed by the State to enjoy that monopoly, as "harassed" was surely a misuse of language. He would take, for instance, the licensing fees. While the small village inn was called upon to pay a comparatively heavy licensing fee in relation to its rateable value, the biggest gin palace in London was not required to contribute more than £60. The licensing fee of vast hotels like the Carlton, the Ritz, and the Metropole was actually a miserable sum of £20 per annum. A wealthy distilling firm like Messrs. Dewar were mulcted in the sum of ten guineas for their licence, and the great firm of Messrs. Bass paid the amazing sum of twenty shillings per annum for their licence to brew. Surely such licence taxation was taxation pour rire. He did not think that any man who was not to some extent blinded by; prejudice or self-interest would maintain that such taxes were adequate. If that position was maintained, then all he could say was that other countries had been wiser in their generation. The licensing fees of New York State alone amounted to more than double the entire fees exacted from the whole of Great Britain. In Norway and Sweden—the most sober countries in Europe—the profits of a wisely regulated liquor trade did not find their way wholly into the pockets of the brewers, but went largely into the coffers of the State, and were expended on reasonable and beneficent objects—amongst others, the formation of a fund for old-age pensions. He was aware that some of his extreme temperance friends held up their hands in horror at the idea of such "complicity" with what they described as an "accursed traffic." But after all, he would rather drink himself into an old-age pension than drink a brewer into a peerage. He had not alluded to possible demands which might from time to time be made upon the Exchequer in order to relieve distress caused by unemployment. But he ventured to think that a readjustment of taxation would provide a powerful stimulus to the home trade, and so to employment. Tariff reformers who regarded the taxation of imports as the panacea for all social evils constantly urged their hearers to fix their eyes on the export trade of the country—that they held to be the chief and best criterion of a nation's commercial
1734
prosperity. But had those gentlemen realised the economic fact that of all the workers in this country probably not more than 15 per cent. were engaged in producing commodities for the foreign market? The remaining 85 per cent. were occupied with the infinitely more important industries of the home market. Sir Robert Griffin had, he believed, said on one occasion that the loss of our entire foreign trade would indeed be a calamity but a measurable calamity. The readjustment of taxation involving as it would a remission of taxation to the poorer classes of the community, would add enormously to the spending power of the poor and enable them to purchase useful and necessary commodities. For example, the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton had recently uttered a feeling appeal in that House on behalf of the unemployed boot makers at Leicester, some thousand in number. Now if the working families of England could, by a lessening of their taxation, purchase two or three extra pairs of boots per annum, there would, he thought, be less unemployment in the boot factories at Leicester. In conclusion he ventured to suggest that in this question of there adjustment of taxation lay one of the greatest opportunities ever presented to Liberalism. They had for the moment failed to carry out their educational policy and to abolish the plural voter—thanks to obstruction in another place. What might be the nature and outcome of their struggle with the powers of political darkness in that other place he did not know. But this he knew—that the people of England would say that in the matter of financial reform, at any rate, the Liberal Party had a free hand and that results were expected in accordance with that freedom. He was convinced that the talk of "not enough money" would not be accepted as an excuse for ever. Not enough money for old-age pensions—not enough money for a sound and democratic measure like the payment of Members—a reform which would need only one-ninth of the cost of a single "Dreadnought." The hollowness of the cry had been demonstrated by the economic facts of the South African war; for even the terrific drain upon our national resources caused by that war—at least £300,000,000—had apparently produced no permanent effect upon the finances of our wealthy

1735
country. He was conscious, of course, of having treated the subject of the discussion very inadequately. He laid no claim to any expert knowledge of finance but had merely tried to voice the general sort of attitude felt towards the question of taxation by the average British elector of the more thoughtful type. He had, at any rate, started a good many fiscal hares that evening and he now left the pursuit of them to hon. Members in various parts of the House who possessed far more detailed knowledge of financial questions than any he could claim for himself. He begged to move.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid the House was grateful to his hon. friend for moving this Motion, and for the unanswerable and convincing way in which he had placed the question before the House. He was sure also that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be grateful for the opportunity to shadow forth the nature of the Budget proposals which they were all so eagerly anticipating. When he surveyed the Budgets of the last quarter of a century he was struck by the fact of how much they had been concerned with a little more on tea, a little less on sugar or a slight increase of the income-tax. With the exception of the measure of Lord Goschen dealing with the consolidation of debt and that of Sir William Harcourt which readjusted the Death Duties, all the Budgets of the last twenty years had been concerned with some trifling readjustments of a recognised gamut of duties. Such Budgets were of far more value to Mincing Lane than they were to the nation at large. It was high time that something more than mere rule-o'-thumb reigned at the Treasury in this matter. In time of peace we tinkered these taxes a little this way or a little that way, and in time of war we borrowed as much as the market would stand and divided the rest between direct and indirect taxation. When that had been the rule with Chancellors of the Exchequer for the last twenty years one did not wonder that a paper like the Spectator recently expressed surprise that no Chancellor with all the means at his command for such a purpose had as yet found it worth while to institute an inquiry into the national income. We
1736
had no properly equipped Census Bureau to act as the eye and ear of a Government determined to base its taxation not on surmise but on fact. No one need be surpised therefore that a member of the present Government a few years ago should have risen in his place and said it was impossible to find out the number of income-tax payers in the country. They were, however, able to arrive at the fact that the income-tax payers now were about 1,000,000 in number and that they took about half the national income. They were also able to ascertain that one-thirtieth of the whole population took one-third of the national income. Those were facts, now that they were ascertained with approximate exactitude, that must guide Chancellors of the Exchequer in the future, and especially Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer, in framing their Budgets. They were also able to find out through the Death Duties with sufficient precision the distribution of property in which was involved the distribution of income. One-ninth of the people owned practically all the property in the country, and one-seventieth of the population owned half the entire land, capital, and accumulated wealth of the United Kingdom. He disclaimed, however, the view that it was the office of taxation to redress inequalities of wealth by means of taxation. Social reform did not mean robbing the rich in order to increase the incomes of the poor. The national income, if evenly distributed, would only furnish the people with a very small and inadequate income, Social reform worthy the name must look to the raising of the masses of the people by the production of a much larger material output. He desired to emphasise the point that whether our national expenditure was large or small, whether it was £50,000,000 or £500,000,000, the amount of revenue required ought to be raised with due regard to the distribution of the national wealth. Even if it were possible largely to reduce our present expenditure it would still be necessary to adjust out taxation in such a manner as to have proper regard to the distribution of the wealth of the United Kingdom. Taxation, in the first place, should have regard to the distribution of wealth, and, in

1737
the second plane, it should not be imposed in such a manner or to such an extent as to restrict the employment of new capital by private individuals. If anyone imbued with Collectivist ideas assumes that with a State organised as our State was we could levy taxation to a very high degree, or that it could be imposed in a reckless manner, they made a very great mistake, because such a course would reduce the existing prosperity of the country by reducing private capital without, under present conditions, increasing public capital. He laid down the maxim that whatever taxation might be it should not exceed the amount which, while it might decrease expenditure on luxuries, would not decrease expenditure in the direction of new capital applied to industry. Taxation at present was roughly divided into direct and indirect taxation. We had a certain amount of direct taxation in the form of income-tax and stamp duties and so forth. That was balanced by the levying of indirect taxes, as he should show, very unjustly. Those taxes took the form of raising a revenue income from such articles as tea, sugar, liquors, and tobacco, and partly in the form of licence duties. Owing to want of knowledge of the income of the country, it had been very difficult for Chancellors of the Exchequer to decide how the incidence of these taxes bore on the various sections of the community. All these taxes, whatever their name might be, were in essence income-tax. The sugar tax and the tea tax were income-taxes. He did not care in what form they levied the taxes to which he referred, they were income-taxes, but their precise incidence, from their very nature, was in a very large degree uncertain, but in so far as they were able to ascertain the incidence, they found that it was exceedingly unjust. He had taken the trouble to boil down each of the different taxes into an income-tax. He had even taken the Post Office profits and treated them as a tax, although he thought they might be justly held not to be a tax at all. He found as a result that total taxation, reduced to the form of an income-tax, was even more unfair in its incidence than had been shown by his hon. friend
1738
the mover of the Resolution. First as to that part of the population whose income lay between £3 a week and £700 a year. There were the middle-class income-taxpayers who were granted abatements under the present income-tax system. They numbered 4,000,000, with wives and children. In that class there were 800,000 income-taxpayers—roughly 4,000,000 of people—and he found that they paid total taxes to the amount of 1s. 6½d. in the £ That included all their indirect taxes as well as income-tax, all Post Office profits, and everything that could properly be put to their account. He took the class of taxpayers which lay above £700 a year and under £5,000 a year. They only numbered 235,000, or with wives and children rather more than 1,000,000 of people. He found that they paid 1s. 9½d. in the £, or 3d. more than the class below them. Then he took the class at the very top of the scale, the most fortunate people, with £5,000 a year and upwards. They only numbered 15,000 people, or with their wives and children 75,000. They paid a total income-tax of 1s. 7d. in the £, or 2½d. less than the people with between £700 a year and £5,000 a year. Again, he took the great mass of the people whom the income-tax collector never troubled—numbering nearly 39,000,000, taking the population roughly at 44,000,000. He found that the income-tax which they paid amounted to 1s. 3d. in the £, or only 4d. less than was paid by the people with over £5,000 a year. That was an average for the 39,000,000. But what of the men who earned about 25s. or 35s. a week? What of the men who, like the road sweepers in his constituency, were paid only 21s. to 23s. a week by a generous Moderate borough council? What was their income-tax? It was higher than that which was paid by the limited class with over £5,000 a year. Yet in arriving at the rich man's total taxation he had included not only the Post Office profits but also the Death Duties, and he had every reason to state that that was not taxation which ought to be included in this estimate of the incidence of taxation. The Death Duties, it had been argued with very great force, were not paid by the dead or by the

1739
living. Sir Robert Giffen had very truly said that—
"Duties upon the succession to property at death are sums reserved by the State out of property which dying people leave behind them and which are therefore not taxes upon the dying, because they are not levied until they have ceased to own the property, and not taxes upon the inheritors because they only inherit by the will and permission of the State itself."
The figures which he had given therefore so far from exaggerating the case left it under-stated. It was true that the taxes which he had been dealing with were commonly called Imperial taxes, but, if they made inquiry into local taxation it would be found that the case would be strengthened. If they considered the ordinary rates levied by local authorities, they would find that the incidence of taxation bore more and more unjustly as they descended the scale, and that our taxation was levied without any regard to the means of those who had to bear it. In view of the incidence of these taxes it would be seen how cruelly they bore upon the poor; it would be seen how indirect taxes were increased to pay their share of the expenses of the late war and had never been removed. These indirect taxes, like the effects of famine, pressed most hardly on the poor. What to a rich man was 1d. in the pound on sugar, or 6d. in the pound on some other article? It mattered very little to him, but to the poor man's budget it meant everything. He would impress upon the minds of those who talked so freely about widening the basis of taxation that it would simply mean robbing the poor, and putting on their shoulders an unjust burden of taxation. His way was now clear to consider the Resolution as a whole. Our present national expenditure was about £124,000,000—a sum not alarming in itself. On what was it spent? We spent £90,000,000 on armaments and the expenses of past wars, and only £34,000,000 remained for peace purposes. We spent on the Navy, £31,000,000, and on the Army about £30,000,000, and a similar sum for past wars, making about £90,000,000 in all. But the nation was becoming aware that it had that fierce thing we call a conscience; it at last was aware of the woes of the aged poor, of the unlovely homes of its people; of the denial of
1740
opportunity to the child. The people were becoming increasingly conscious of their condition and the causes of it, and as the late Sir William Harcourt said, we were all Socialists nowadays. Even the noble Lord the Member for South Kensington condemned the Government because they had not sufficient regard for social reform. Things must indeed be in a bad way when they found such an appeal coming from South Kensington. The national expenditure meant one-fourteenth of our income, and a high authority had set it down that when the national expenditure did not exceed one tithe of the national income, that really could not be said to be too large. With that opinion he very heartily agreed. There was general agreement that more money was needed for social reforms and all Parties had joined in a desire to grant old-age pensions, which were included in the general scheme of social reform. For his part he termed old-age pensions not a social reform but a shame-offering. Whatever the proper term, they were all agreed that it was high time that old-age pensions were granted. Speech after speech had been delivered full of sympathy for the aged poor. The facts had been pointed out again and again with wearisome reiteration, but it all ended in one cry, "Where is the money to come from?" The aged poor men and women of sixty-five years of age and over numbered about 2,000,000, and, therefore, an old-age pension of 5s. a week would cost about £26,000,000 a year. If the pensions were made claimable by persons sixty-five years of age and over the cost of pensions at sixty-five might be reduced to £21,000,000.
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there is a Bill dealing with this subject before the House, and therefore it is not in order to discuss the details of the question now.
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he would, of course, bow to that ruling, but he wished to enter his protest against the existence of a system which precluded him from alluding to such an important subject on such an occasion as this. As he could not discuss old age pensions he

1741
would discuss the possibility of granting some other benefit, it mattered not what, to the aged. If the age was raised to seventy and the pensions were made claimable, the cost might be only £13,000,000. It was possible to obtain that sum by a readjustment of the income-tax. The upper 5,000,000 of the population paid in income-tax only 3 per cent. of their income. If their payment was increased to 5 per cent. it would raise £45,000,000 per annum, and 6 per cent. would raise £54,000,000 per annum. He claimed that it was not only possible to carry out a scheme of old-age benefit costing from £13,000.000 to £20,000,000 a year, but it was also possible, at the same time, to relieve the middle and lower middle classes of a share of the burden of taxation which now fell upon them. He did not think it was necessary for him to consider the bitter cry of those who had incomes from £1,000 to £3,000 a year, and he would like, by way of illustration, to show what was the amount of taxation borne by a man with an income of £1,000 a year at the present time. He would have to pay £50 a year in income-tax, about £33 a year in local rates, £3 15s. house duty, and his share of indirect taxation would probably be about £7 a year, making a total taxation for all purposes of £93 15s. a year, or less than one-tenth of his total income. If he pursued his calculation into the case of the man with £2,000 a year the taxation could be shown to be even less onerous. With regard to what had been said about the hardship of taxation upon men with incomes of £1,000 a year and upwards, he would remind the House that upwards of 43,000,000 out of a population of 44,000,000 had incomes below £1,000 a year. The £1,000 man was thus far up the social scale and mounted upon the shoulders of nearly the whole of the population, and to argue that a man with an income of £1,000 a year ought to be taxed at a lower rate was simply disregarding the elementary facts relating to the distribution of incomes in this country. If in rearranging the taxation of the country they had too much regard for the persons who were in such fortunate positions they would necessarily be compelled to have too little regard for the middle
1742
and the lower middle classes and the working classes. He had framed a scale beginning at one penny in the pound and rising to 2s in the pound which would have regard to the necessities of the middle class, and especially the lower middle class, and yet would secure a larger revenue than we now enjoyed. He found that an income-tax was possible which infringed none of the maxims of taxation to which he had alluded, which had regard to the means of all classes of the community, which did not, even in the case of the millionaire, exceed a tax of 2s. in the pound, and which would raise a revenue sufficient, to carry out a scheme of old-age benefit costing £13,000,000 per annum. Under that scheme—which compared favourably with our existing roughly graduated plan of taxation—a payment of 16d. in the pound was only reached on incomes of £2,500, and yet there would be a revenue sufficient to grant any beneficent reform which occurred to them. It might be said that the scheme would produce so much evasion of the tax as would render nugatory all their efforts to get a larger revenue. He would like to point out in reply to that argument that during the war in South Africa the income-tax was raised to 1s. 3d. in the pound. Before the war the income-tax was 8d. in the pound and during the war it was raised to 1s. 3d., or nearly doubled. But that great increase in the tax did not lead to any evasion; the figures of the revenue authorities showed that. In the year 1900, when the income-tax was 8d. in the pound, it yielded £2,300,000 per penny. In the following year, when it was raised to 1s. in the £, in spite of the increase in abatements the yield was nearly £2,500,000 per penny. It was afterwards raised to 1s. 2d., and the yield was still £2,500,000, and when it reached 1s. 3d. the yield was £2,535,000 per penny. In view of the time at his disposal he was compelled to pass over the many other revisions of taxation which might furnish additional sources of income. He would only refer to the fact that it had been clearly shown that the licence duties might easily be readjusted to produce an extra £8,000,000 per annum, while the death duties particularly deserved their attention. The Liberal Party were pledged to show

1743
that it was possible on a basis of free trade to carry on a programme of social reforms. They had been returned not only to keep flying the free trade flag, but also to show that it was possible, on a basis of free trade, to carry out a wide and generous policy of social reform. They would not be true to the trust which had been reposed in them if they did not pursue the policy to which he had alluded. It had been pointed out that in Germany where they had protection, there was a system of old-age pensions, but in free-trade England, old-age pensions had not been secured. That was a point which had lately been taken up by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they were representing in the constituencies that quite a small duty on the manufactured articles imported into this country would produce a revenue large enough to provide a pension scheme. That was to his mind a dangerous propaganda, and it was especially dangerous when they considered the great mass of misery and misfortune which existed in the ranks of the common people. He had in his hand only last week a document showing the terrible conditions under which the youth in one of our great industrial centres were growing up. Our cities contained 80 per cent. of the people of the country. The document to which he referred dealt with the conditions in Bradford. He found that only 10,000 out of nearly 50,000 children were sent to school decently clean, and that only about the same number could be said to be properly nurtured by their parents. Those were facts which ought to give them pause. If they turned to other great cities, whether in England, or Ireland or Scotland, they found that a similar condition of things prevailed. The poor were growing up under conditions which were not creditable to the citizens of the British Empire. In his own constituency he saw day by day the terrible poverty which existed. What, it might be asked, had that to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said that it had every thing to do with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So long as the Treasury was poor in a rich State, so long would they continue to pass in that House Acts of
1744
Parliament which would be futile in their operation. They might pass measures dealing with the housing of the working classes, the unemployed, the condition of children in the schools, and other matters relating to the social well-being of the people; but the desired reforms could not be properly carried out until they had a readjustment of taxation to provide the means to give those reforms effect. It was insufficient for hon. Gentlemen opposite to reply that the country should adopt the system of tariff reform which they advocated. The condition of the poor was very much the same in Germany, and even in America with all its national resources. They must make up their minds that they could afford to carry out the reforms which they had set their hands to, and that the Government must no longer be a poor Government in a rich State. Viewed in that way the Budget ceased to be a mere matter of finance; it ceased to be a collection of cold facts and colder figures. It became charged with matter of life and death; with the masses who were rotting in our unlovely towns and the thousands of little children who looked up and were not fed. It was not figures alone they were dealing with; they were concerned with the lives and labours of great multitudes of people whose future prosperity depended on the action which might be taken there to remedy the evils from which they suffered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, having regard to the wealth of the United Kingdom and the nature of its distribution, it is necessary to readjust the burden of taxation in order to make provision for social reforms which are urgently needed."—(Mr. Bennett.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,: My hon. friends have shown, in admirable and instructive speeches, that from their point of view this is an opportune moment for introducing this discussion. The speech of the hon. Member for the Woodstock Division was a thoughtful and admirable presentation of the main outlines of the case. As to the seconder of the Motion, during the fiscal controversy no one contributed more to a sound

1745
and healthy state of public opinion, and to-night he has shown that he is capable of preparing and developing and expounding a Budget to the House of Commons. I congratulate them both heartily on the contribution they have made to our stock of knowledge. I regret, however, that I am not myself in a position to follow their example. I must reserve whatever I have to say on this subject for another three weeks. The House will believe, however, that in saying that I am not treating the Motion with any disrespect. For obvious reasons it is impossible for me to go into matters tonight which I am very much afraid I shall not be able to shrink from two or three weeks hence. The Government accept the Motion, and ask the House to assent to it, both in letter and in spirit. Speaking for myself, I believe the business of Liberal finance at this time, after we have made adequate provision for the services of the country, and its security and good administration, consists negatively in the maintenance of our system of free trade, and affirmatively in doing everything that lies in our power to maintain and improve the national credit, and to provide funds for social reform. Whether we shall succeed in carrying out a policy based on those lines time alone can show, but I shall ask in advance, as I shall have to ask again before very long that, if we proceed by cautious steps, our efforts may be watched with patience as well as with sympathy. The House may be assured that no one is more determined than we are, so far as our opportunities offer, to bring about, I hope in the lifetime of this Parliament, some, at any rate, of the most important of the great social reforms which have been alluded to.
MR. HILLSsaid he desired in the first place to direct the attention of the House to the speech of the hon. Member for North Paddington. The hon. Member had told them that the present system of taxation fell too heavily on the poorer classes, and then he produced his own budget. He understood that the scheme of the hon. Member was to keep all taxes, except the income-tax, at the same level, and in order to get the money he wanted he would place a surtax on large incomes, and thereby get a revenue of between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000.
1746
He would not at present discuss whether that could be done or not. He had always been a believer in a graduated income-tax. He thought there would be less dislocation of industry, and less difficulty in connection with a fairly graduated income-tax than with any other single tax. But surely the conclusion arrived at by the hon. Member opposite left untouched the question of the burden of taxation on the poor. Our present system of taxation was extremely hard and unfair on the poorer classes of the population. We had slowly shifted all our taxes to articles which we did not produce, and for ease of collection the imposts were placed on articles from which a large amount could be raised. Hence it had come about that the vast burden of indirect taxation was now borne by the very poorest classes. Everybody drank tea or coffee, and most people took sugar with it, and a great many people smoked tobacco. All these articles were necessities, or quasi necessities of life, and they were necessities of the very poorest householders. When they came to deal with the question of taxation they must look at it as a whole. It was no good for the hon. Gentleman to say that an extra sum could be got from a graduated income-tax. We had to readjust the whole scheme of our taxation, and find a way of raising the same amount of, or more, money by some means which would not hit our people so hard. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken about free trade and protection. He quite agreed that the real struggle between the two policies would come on the revenue question. That would be the field of battle, for the Party opposite had got to show that they could finance their social programme on a free trade basis. The hon. Member for North Paddington was perfectly fair about that. He had stated clearly that if the Party opposite did not do that, it would be they who were to blame, and not the advocates of tariff reform. We raised £34,000,000 in import duties, and yet we called ourselves a free trade and non-tariff country, because in imposing those duties we looked to the revenue return of the tax only, and not to the protective character of the tax. We confined ourselves to a duty on a few articles, because the duty was

1747
easy of collection. But why should we not extend the list? The only argument that he could see against the extension of the list of dutiable articles was the argument of convenience. The first objection to a revenue tax was that if a small tax on an article which we produced was imposed, the cost of that article would be raised all round. But all economists from Mill downwards agreed that in the case of small duties, importers would pay the tax rather than lose the market. The question of the incidence of taxation was no doubt a very thorny one. But he would point out that it could not be said for certain that import duties must raise prices. Internal competition would keep them down. At any rate, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to keep in his mind the revenue side of the question only, and to avoid all protective tendency, there was no reason why the present list of dutiable articles should not be extended so as to include articles that we were able to produce in this country. By that means he did not think the cost would be increased, nor did he think the tax would be strictly protective. He believed that by that means a large revenue could be raised. It was said that if this tax was imposed on imported things which were produced in this country, it would benefit the home producer, and lead to the formation of trusts. But such an argument could not be sustained, for trusts existed in free trade countries like ours. The newspapers of this country were a few months ago ringing with denunciations of a trust, and the free Press, not free trade, killed it. Even admitting a tendency to the aggregation of industries which we called trusts under a high tariff, there would not be that tendency with a low duty upon a more extended list of articles than now bore duty. There might be a large extension, and the taxes would fall very lightly on the people. In protectionist countries, in America, for instance, luxuries, not the common articles daily used by the poor, bore the brunt of this form of contribution to the revenue. A comparison of the price lists in New York and London would show that many things were as cheap or cheaper in New York. It was not the cost of living, but the price of
1748
luxuries that was raised. [Ministerial and Labour cries of "No!"]
MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid there was evidence to show that the cost of living in the United States had risen 50 per cent. since 1897.
MR. HILLSsaid that he was aware of that, but even now articles used by the poor, were as cheap as in England. [MINISTERIAL and LABOUR cries of "No, no!"] Imported articles, such as clothes and carpets, were a great deal dearer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might also include a few luxuries in his list. He might raise a considerable revenue on silk manufactures and still not raise the price sufficiently to cause the transfer of the silk trade to this country, which, of course, would be against the free trade creed. He hoped that a more effective Budget would be produced than we had recently been accustomed to. There had been enough of niggling with the tea and tobacco duty. Our Chancellors of the Exchequer must go further a field.
MR. HEMMERDEagreed that in a graduated income tax and an increase in the license duties they might find a convenient source of revenue to carry out social reforms. He had intervened because of the omission by previous speakers of one possible source of revenue for which he quoted the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the member for West Birmingham himself. He referred to the land. It would not be wise on the part of the present Government to adhere to the present basis of taxation, and to pledge the national credit up to the hilt for social reforms, only to leave the Tariff Reform Party to argue that they could not find further taxes except by recourse to protection. Why should a tax not be put upon land values? That would then only resume a part of the wealth which the growth of the community and the labour of the people had created. This would be more defensible economically than putting taxes on the food or necessities of the people. The hon. Member for Durham had suggested a number of revenue taxes, but he became confused more than once as to which were protective taxes and which were revenue taxes. There were very few actual

1749
revenue taxes which could be put on, and the hon. Member did not suggest any new ones. In dealing with the land question they would always find the same objections as those which were raised when dealing with the licensing question. When it was proposed to tax licences more highly and to deal more drastically with the drink trade, they were told that the person they would be attacking was the small publican; but they knew they were attacking the great brewer and not the small freeholder at all. When they come forward with proposals for the taxation of land values they would no doubt be again reminded of the small friendly societies with their property and trust funds invested in land, and then they would remember the case of the licensed victuallers and the brewers. In dealing with the question of the taxation of land values they had the great advantage of being supported by the great economists of the country and by the experience of other countries and some of the Colonies; while the great protectionist leader pointed twenty years ago to what could be done by it. Not only would it provide revenue, but it would have important collateral effects. It would have an important effect on the housing problem in. making land cheaper. If they taxed land upon its real value it must have the effect of clearing out the rookeries and slum dwellings in all our great towns, and of making land cheaper for housing schemes. If they were right upon the question of taxing land values, and if the theory was a sound one, then it would provide them with the best of all taxes. A tax of 1d. in the pound on the capital value of land would produce a revenue of £15,000,000 a year. He personally hankered after the abolition of the present tax on sugar and tea. When they were told, almost ad nauseam, that there were 12,000,000 people in the country on the verge of starvation, the best way to relieve them was to take off the taxes which pressed most hardly upon them; and that could be done if the taxation of land values were adopted. It would also have an indirect effect. The man who supported tariff reform or protection when he faced the country at an election declared that he was against food taxes and only wanted to take them off one article and put them on another.
1750
If the taxes were taken off all articles of food, not only would the poor be relieved, but those gentlemen would be prevented from making that double-shuffle. He hoped that the Government would be able, by developing the great resources of revenue, such as the drink monopoly and the great land monopoly, to spare these smaller sources of revenue. He hoped they would be able to take all these indirect taxes off the people. Indirect taxation could never be graduated. It always struck the poor out of all proportion to the rich. People sometimes said the poor did not feel it, but he had never heard a person defending a pickpocket argue that he should be acquitted on the ground that the person who was robbed did not know it at the time. He believed indirect taxes were bad taxes, and that there were many much better sources of revenue. It was because he believed that and wanted to see land really dealt with and the proposed charges on land made what they really ought to be that he had intervened in the debate.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the scheme of the hon. Member for North Paddington was as simple as possible. All they had to do was to raise a considerable amount from income tax and institute a system of graduation on incomes over a certain amount. The scheme of the mover of the Motion was not nearly so well defined; and then came the most amazing speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, who had confined himself entirely to the taxation of land. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by the simple means of taxing land they would solve all the social problems which faced them at the present time. What was it that the land was suffering from? Surely it was that it was overburdened by taxation, whether local or Imperial, and the question with those who represented rural districts was how to remove that great burden rather than how they were to impose fresh taxation upon the land. The man who lived in an urban district got a direct benefit from the gas and water and other things for which he was taxed; but what about the man who had an outlying farm, who paid a sanitary rate for works which were three miles off, and who also paid a police rate and a highway

1751
rate for roads which he himself did not need? That was the form of taxation which did most harm in rural districts. It was not by increasing but by reducing the burdens on the land that they would give the greater benefit to the country. The distribution of wealth had Completely changed. The incidence of taxation in rural districts was grossly unfair and was levied on the class least able to bear it. The rich man in the rural districts was not the man who paid the greatest share of the rates, but the man who paid least; the imported commercial man who had built a house on a small plot of land and the wealthy tradesman in the village, though they might not be very wealthy, did not pay anything like the rates the farmer of the land paid. A farmer was paying income-tax on £566 a year with a rateable value of £1,050, and he paid £157, as compared with a tradesman in the same neighbourhood who had £600 a year, and paid only £13 10s. All these things made it perfectly clear that the incidence of taxation in rural districts was grossly unfair. What he was perfectly certain of was that it must injure the cause of social reform in rural districts, and that the condition of the labourer and workman in those districts was bound to be worse because of this unfair incidence. It was the incidence of the rates which pressed unfairly on the rural districts; and he thought it would be freely admitted that if the rural districts could be taxed more fairly there would be greater chance of employment and of better wages. The social condition of the labourers might then be expected to improve. It was often suggested that it would be better to take the burden off the occupier and put it on the owner, but that only brought them back to the question of the land paying the rate in one form or another. They could not get away from the fact that as between the owner of land and the owner of personalty the amount of rates paid by the former was unfair and unjust. When Members discussed the better housing of the working classes and the provision of small holdings, he hoped that they would realise that this rating question was one which underlay the possibility of making those reforms a success. Many Members, in all parts of the House, earnestly
1752
desired to see some better form of rural housing and some successful form of small holdings. But how were they going to get men to improve their holdings, or invest their money in small holdings, if, the moment they did one or the other, a heavy rate was put upon them out of all proportion to the value of their property? He hoped that the House would excuse him for having brought the subject before them at length, but he believed that a great many who lived in urban districts, and who had not considered this problem, were not aware of the great grievance of which they had to complain in rural districts—a grievance which was well deserving the consideration of the House.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid that would-be reformers should in no way cavil at each others' methods if their ends were the same, and he rose, not in any degree in hostility to any other hon. Members who had addressed the House, but as the mouthpiece of that group of Members who believed that no scheme, however excellent., could cause a lasting improvement in the country's prosperity until the incidence of taxation had been removed from improvements and personal effort, and was imposed instead in such a manner as to stimulate production He referred to the scheme, widely advocated throughout the world and already successfully practised in many countries, of taxing the unimproved value of land. In their opinion, none of the other proposed reforms could attain to their full effect until that had been done; for this reason, that a large part of any improvement, whether in the condition of the worker, or in the condition of trade, went, and must necessarily go, to enhance land values. At present, by far the heaviest tax on industry were the local rates, both urban and rural. It was those local rates that did most to check improvements. In their view, no reform could be so beneficial as one which removed from improvements the hampering effect of that charge. Would the House tolerate a very short parable which exactly illustrated his point? "There was a Sultan in Egypt and he taxed the people. For each fig tree he took payment of ten dinars. So it came to pass that the people cut down their fig-trees. Then another Sultan arose,

1753
and he took the tax off fig-trees, and taxed instead the soil from which all good things must come. And behold, the people planted fig-trees with diligence, and the land flourished exceedingly." That parable put in a nutshell the main case for the taxation of land values. At present every improvement, every fig-tree, was taxed, and therefore few improvement, were made; manufactories got out of date, slums fell into worse disrepair, houses stood empty, and agricultural land was starved of capital.—all because the tax was on improvements. If a man put up a new warehouse in his factory he was taxed more; if a railway company put up a goods shed to accommodate traffic, it was taxed more; if a landlord drained a marsh, worth nothing, and made it worth £5 an acre, he was taxed more. In the borough of Hanley they put a tax of 50 per cent. on improvements. No wonder they did not get capital for improvements in Hanley, and that it was invested instead in the Pennsylvania Railroad or in Japanese bonds. There was a most unfortunate impression abroad—quite an erroneous one—that their scheme was intended to penalise the landlords. Nothing of the sort. They wanted merely to stop the system which penalised the man who used his land or his talents well and taxed him for the benefit of the man who used them badly. They did not want to tap new sources of revenue. They wanted substitution, and not now taxation. Their scheme was backed and exactly defined in the Report of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Land Values (Scotland) Bill; signed by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and drafted by him in wording so admirable that he made no apology to the House for quoting the conclusion he arrived at—
"A valuation of land values should be set on foot throughout Scotland in both burghs and counties….All local taxation should be transferred from the present valuations of the valuations of land value, thus substituting local taxation of land value for all the present local taxation of landed property."
And again—
"We consider the benefits of the proposed system lie, not so much in 'tapping a new source of revenue', as in the economic benefits which would result from fundamental reform of the system of taxation….The positive side is the taxation of landed property on the basis of its market value…The negative side is the untaxing of buildings and improvements."
1754
To show the effects of this change on the urban landlord, he gave one instance. A firm, whose name he had the honour to bear, but in which he unfortunately had no financial interest, had a freehold potworks in the Borough of Hanley. It was recently revalued for assessment purposes, and they found the value of the land was £300 and the buildings,£600 a year. That was one-third land and two-thirds buildings. Now, those best qualified told him the valuation of the whole of Hanley was about one-third land and two-thirds buildings and improvements. Rates were at present 10s. in the £ on land and buildings in Hanley. If rates were based on land alone, and the same revenue had to be raised, the assessment would rise to 30s. in the £ on the unimproved land value. It sounded enormous. They would be paying 30s. in the £ on their land. Yet they would only be paying exactly the same amount that they paid at present, for they would be assessed on their land value alone, one-third of their full present assessment. And they would be better off, for they could improve their property without being taxed for doing so. Manufacturers would be better off, because they would be able to improve their business. The people of Hanley would be better off, because they would get more; and everybody who valued good ware would be able to get the best cheaper than at present. Everybody, therefore, would benefit by the change. The average urban landlord would therefore benefit by the change; but what was true of the average urban landlord was also true of the average rural landlord. And what was true of local rates was also true of Imperial taxation. Suppose the rural landlord developed his land by small holdings, suppose he investor his money in building, fencing, draining and manuring. When, by intensive cultivation, and great expenditure of thought, labour and capital, he had doubled the return from his land, his rates were raised by the present system, and he was actually punished for his improvements. The land next door, of the same unimproved value, owned it might be by an absentee and starved of capital, actually paid less and less in proportion to its owner's inactivity, in proportion to his incapacity. But, if the Report of the Scotch Committee were adopted, and rates were

1755
based not on the rent received for land and buildings, but on the unimproved value of the land, that suicidal policy would be reversed. The tax, instead of being a deterrent, would be an encouragement to the proper employment of brains and Capital. Then his friends wished to take a further step. In order to obviate the injustice which so often arose through limitations of boundary, as for instance, in the London boroughs—an injustice which frequently laid a heavy burden on a poor district, and a comparatively light one on a rich district—they proposed to take part of the local rate on land values, and make it a uniform Imperial tax. The revenue which was thus obtained, irrespective of these fancy boundaries which municipalities setup, could be used to free local authorities from the poor rate and education rate—rates which pressed with undue severity on poor districts and on rural areas. That would spread the burden over the whole country in accordance with their ability to pay, and therefore it would largely relieve rural areas from the crushing rates which oppressed the agricultural industry. Incidentally it would do away with the necessity for those complicated, extravagant, and at the same time often wasted subsidies known as grants-in-aid. This change in the incidence of taxation had therefore two objects—(1) the freeing of improvements from taxation and the equalisation of burden between rich and poor districts; (2) the securing for the community the full benefit of all future unearned increment of land—of all future accidental improvement in land values. The rate and tax on unimproved land values would practically absorb into the national and local exchequers the whole of the unimproved land value, and that without in any way increasing the burden which the good landlord had to bear, but rather diminishing it. Therefore, if the value of land went up anywhere through outside causes and not through the owners' efforts, the increased value would increase the assessment and would increase the revenue to be got from that assessment; so that the whole of the unearned increment would not go as at present to the private individual, but would become the earned increment of the community or State
1756
which had given the value, [Dissent.] He was assuming that the improvement was not due to the owner, but solely to some outside cause for which the owner was not responsible. The London County Council had lately found out to their cost that a large part of the benefits they had conferred upon Londoners—parks, tramways, free ferries, and street improvements—had gone to increase rents. Unfortunately for them this increase in the value of land had only occurred in patches, where the improvements were made, so that the majority of London landlords could not be accused of ingratitude for their action in the late elections. What Parliament had to do was to see that all their social reforms did not end in the same way. If small holdings re-peopled the countryside, up would go the price of land. If aged pensioners were able to end their days in their own homes instead of the workhouse, the demand for cottages would be greater all over the country, and consequently cottage rents would rise. If they dissuaded the people from wasting their money in drink, trade would improve, and the value of land would rise in consequence. Public money, however expended, whether in helping landlords to build good cottages or to finance small holders, or to plant forests, or to dig canals, or to reclaim foreshores, raised the unimproved value of land throughout the whole neighbourhood. If Parliament would only preface these reforms by the taxation and rating reform which he and his friends advocated, the whole of the increased value would go back to the community and help to pay for the improvements. If they did not do that, more than half the advantage that they expected to see from these great reforms would drift into private and undeserving pockets. He asked the House to support the reform which was recommended by the Solicitor-General for Scotland in his Report of the Scottish Committee last session when he said that—
"All local taxation should be transferred from the present valuations to the valuations of land value, thus substituting the local taxation of land value for all the present local taxation of landed property."
If they did that they would free the improvements from taxation, cause an enormous boom in the industries of the

1757
country, equalise the burden between rich and poor districts, and secure for the community the full benefit of all the reforms they carried out.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that after listening to the speeches of various hon. Members one was driven to the conclusion that the present system of taxation was thoroughly unsatisfactory. It was a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not heard all the arguments. The hon. Member for East Denbighshire had quoted the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in support of the statement that a tax of a penny in the pound on land values would produce £15,000,000 a year of revenue.
Mr. HEMMERDE: On the capital value of land values.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he would have very much liked to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion on that particular point. Of course it was a matter which was very hard to decide. It rested entirely on the method in which the land values were going to be computed and assessed. Although there was a great deal to be said in favour of additional taxation of land in large towns, he thought it was difficult to draw the line, and to form a basis of taxation except in respect of the return it gave to the owner. He would like to ask the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme how he proposed to raise sufficient revenue for all local and imperial purposes, if he was going to put a tax only on the unimproved value of land.
MR. WEDGWOOD: I do not think we should get anything like the whole of our taxation in that way.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that was the admission which he hoped to get from the hon. Gentleman. He was entitled to ask where the rest of the money was to come from. He understood that the hon. Gentleman approached the question from a practical point of view. He gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member that by putting this very heavy
1758
tax on the unimproved value of land they would tax unimproved land out of existence altogether. He did not know whether other hon. Gentlemen assented to that proposition. In other words the hon. Gentleman said that the local authority would become the owner of the unimproved land by default on the part of the owner.
MR. WEDGWOOD: The unimproved value of the land—say a field—will not be the full value of the field, and the landlord will remain the landlord of the capital sunk in the field, but the local authority will become automatically the owner of the unimproved value.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that was a very good theory, and he would like very much to be able to support it from the practical point of view. It meant that land on which nothing had been spent for improvement, which had been considered worthless, or practically worthless, and not worth spending money on to improve, would be taxed out of existence, and would become the property of the State or of the local authority. The result would be that the State and the local authority would be left in the possession of all the worst land in the country, a great deal of which could not be turned to any use. Then there was another point to which he wished to refer, viz., the incidence of the poor rate if there was any charge which should be paid by the wealth of the country it was the poor rate. It was the duty of the rich to pay for the poor, but that was not the principle on which the poor rate was at present based. There might be two men living in similarly-sized houses in the same place, one with an income of £300 a year, and the other with an income of £3,000 a year, and yet they paid exactly the same poor rate. That was an absolutely rotten system, which bore hardly on rural districts which paid far more than their proper share of the poor rate. He maintained that the poor rate, as at present, levied, was a most unjust tax, especially in the rural districts, and he believed that if it were placed on a proper basis they would do a great deal for the promotion of small holdings, and of agriculture generally.
MR. REESsaid he was sorry that the hon. Member for Durham had spoken somewhat contemptuosly of taking off 1d. from the duty on tea. For his part he only despised a 1d. when he had 2d. in sight. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to take 2d. off the tea duty. The tea industry was peculiarly deserving of the sympathy of that House. Tea was grown by British capital, in British possessions, and by British-Indian labour. Such labour in no way competed with white labour; only natives could work in the Indian sun, and the more worked on these estates the more work there was for white labour by way of supervision. He wished it was understood that where white and coloured labour met, the function of white labour was the supervision of coloured labour, and there really was no competition between the two classes. They should do all they could to equalise taxation, but he deprecated the habit of dividing the people of the country into rich and poor, and suggesting that there was a necessary antagonism between classes, or that some classes were "propertied" and others were not. What was the limit of property, which made a man one of the "propertied classes"? The hon. Member for Denbighshire had spoken of making an attack on the drink monopoly. He himself supported to the utmost the temperance policy, but it was from a love of temperance, and not from a desire to attack the brewers, who, at this moment, were not absolutely rolling in ill-gotten wealth. An attack on brewers or on railway companies might be a very good cry for an outside political platform, but, in the result, it did the Liberal Party no good, but rather harm, for most people had something to lose, and no one knew whose turn might come next, if "attacks" became lawful politics. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had treated the House to a very interesting tale of an Egyptian Pasha, whose fig tree by careful compression he had, to use his own phrase, put into a nutshell. If he might venture to indulge in anecdotal mood he might say that he remembered a case of a beggar who cried aloud to a Persian ruler, "Give me a brother's fortune." As everybody knew, beggars in the East were very importunate, and could not be treated with
1760
indifference, though the courtiers try to drive them away. The King said, "Come to me to-morrow." The beggar went the next day to the palace of the king, who gave him a 1d.; but the beggar said, "I wanted a brother's portion," whereupon the King replied, "If I gave all my brothers a 1d., I should not have a ½d. left for myself." This tale was much to the point when the rich and poor were treated, as if they were sharply defined different classes, as indeed they were in the great Protectionist Empires of Europe, and in the East, but as fortunately they were not in this island. He did not think the poor were in this country so sharply divided from the rich as they were in other countries. He thought there was great sympathy between the different classes in this country, and it was absolutely impossible to say where the line of demarcation between rich and poor began. Though unhappily there were more who were undoubtedly poor—than he could wish. As to the taxation of the country, let them be fair to everybody who owned anything, while they should be slow to put the onus of taxation on their poorer brethren wherever it could be avoided. He would take the case of the experimental politician to illustrate his point. The experimental politician said that everything should be divided equally. He remembered an account of a conversation upon that point. One man said to the other, "If you had two horses would not you give me one?" and the answer was "Yes, certainly." The next question was, "If you had two cows would you give me one?" and again the answer was "Yes." Then the question was asked, "If you had two pigs would you give me one?" and the answer this time was, "That is not fair, because you know that I have two pigs." Let every one who was not abjectly poor remember he had something to lose, and that there were always idle wastrels prepared to divide what he had as well as the greater fortunes of the rich. The small belongings of the small owners in the aggregate, were more than the possessions of the rich, and would in their turn be plundered, if once the policy of division all round were adopted. He did want the House to do all they could

1761
to equalise taxation, but let not them get into the habit of dividing the people of this country into rich and poor, and making out that there were two classes between whom there was a necessary antagonism. His hon. friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme had dealt with the question of rates, which he had very truly said were very heavy, and he had proceeded to show that the best way of dealing with high rates was to pass them on to somebody else. For himself he believed that was the best way of dealing with high rates, so long as one could do it and from one's own point of view, but under that system the time came when there was nobody to whom to pass them on. Moreover a time would come when they would have to consider whether the rates were spent in a manner of which they could fully approve. Then the hon. Member spoke of the unimproved value of the land, and he would like to have that phrase exactly defined, because it was difficult without exact definition to know what the hon. Member really did propose. Did he mean the prairie value? Hardly. But what exactly did he mean? Several hon. Gentlemen had offered Budgets to the House, but they had all been in some respects either too experimental or too sentimental to suit practical politics, and the net result in his own case was that he was glad that the national finances were in the hands of the experts, and he believed that while that continued to be the case, there was a far better chance of funds being available, not only for the necessary services of the country, but for much needed social reforms.
MR. BENNETTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
MR. HUNTargued that protection was the only financial system under which it would be possible to make provision for social reform, and said that according to the last statistics the poor people of this country paid more in taxation than the poor people of Germany or America.
Mr. Carnegiehad told them recently that a sovereign would buy more food and clothes for the people of America than it would for the people of this country. Under a system of free imports Germany and America had fewer poor people than we had here, fewer unskilled persons who were unable to gain a livelihood, and fewer people who were untidy in the streets or in their houses. The reason was that the necessaries of the poor were so heavily taxed in this country. The people of this country had to pay the whole of the taxes. Nearly all the luxuries of the poor were taxed, whilst with the exception of alcohol and tobacco the luxuries of the rich were allowed to come into this country free.
MR. BENNETTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
MR. HUNTargued further that everything that the poor consumed was taxed, while the rich to a large extent escaped.
Resolved, "That, in the opinion of this House, having regard to the wealth of the United Kingdom, and the nature of its distribution, it is necessary to readjust the burden of taxation in order to make provision for social reforms which are urgently needed."

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (SCOTLAND) (ELECTION OF MINISTERS).
Copy ordered, "of the regulations framed and enacted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to be observed in the election and appointment of Ministers under the powers conferred upon them by the Patronage Abolition Act, and Returns for each parish in Scotland of the last occasion since 1897 on which a vacancy has been

1763
filled up under any such regulations of the General Assembly, stating as follows:—

(1) The population, male and female, at the last preceding census of each such parish.

(2) The number of male voters and female voters respectively qualified as communicants.

(3) The number of male voters and female voters respectively qualified as adherents.

(4) The total number of voters on the roll."—(Mr. McCallum.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PROCEDURE).
Postponed Proceeding on Question [20th March]—

(1) When a Bill has been read a second time it shall stand committed to one of the Standing Committees, unless the House, on Motion to be decided without Amendment or debate, otherwise order, and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill is read a second time, may be made by any Member, and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business. But this order shall shall not apply to—

(a) Bills for imposing taxes or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills; or

(b) Bills for confirming Provisional Orders.

(2) The House may, on Motion made by the Member in charge of a Bill, commit the Bill to a Standing Committee in respect of some of its provisions, and to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of other provisions. If such a Motion is opposed the Speaker, after permitting, if he thinks fit, a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from the Member who opposes the Motion, shall, without further debate put the Question thereon—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman)—resumed.

Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 8th April.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to the cost and method of reporting and publishing the debates and proceedings in Parliament.
Committee accordingly nominated of, Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Barran Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Toulmin, and Mr. Walrond.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. GEORGE WHITELEY,)announced that he intended to move the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule the next day in order to ensure the passing of the Motion for the adjournment for the Easter holidays.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he noticed that the hon. Gentleman had put down the rules of procedure for Monday week; he did not think he could intend to take them on that day, because there was a distinct understanding that they should not be taken till the following Thursday.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid there was certainly an understanding that that business should not be taken till Thursday. At all events, there was a tentative understanding.
Adjourned at eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.