Commons Sitting of 8 May 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill, "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Chelmsford and Merthyr Tydvil," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill, "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Hertford, the Goole Joint Hospital District, and the Oaken-gates and Dawley Joint Water Board," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions

201
for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill, "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford (Yorks), Northampton, and Wigan," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill, reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Petition from Lambeth, for alteration to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Hamilton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Lambeth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Perth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition against; from Frog more; Hoxton; Skirbeck; and Small Heath; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petition from Monmouth, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Coleford, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  SECONDARY ENDOWED SCHOOLS (SCHEMES).
  Petition from Worcester, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION ACTS.
  Petition from the Personal Rights Association, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871 (COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AT SOUTH KENSINGTON).
  Paper [presented 7th May] to be printed. [No. 141.]
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Copy presented, of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales, 1905. Part II. (Civil Judicial Statistics), edited by Sir John Macdonnell, C.B., LL.D., Master of the Supreme Court [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3777 and 3778 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES,

  Capital Expediture by Local Education Authorities.
  MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the total capital expenditure of local education authorities, including that spent by school boards, on the provision of public elementary schools from the coming into operation of the Education Act, 1870, down to the end of the last financial year; what amount was owing by local education authorities under this head at the commencement of the last financial year; and what was the amount paid by local education authorities during that year for interest and for sinking funds respectively on such indebtedness.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Complete figures for total capital expenditure on the provision of public elementary schools are not avaliable, but the amount of loans for the provision of public elementary schools sanctioned to school boards since 1870 was £48,764,48110s. 2d.,

  203
  and to local education authorities under the Education Act, 1902, to 31st March, 1906, £4,437,035, together amounting to £53,201,516 10s. 2d. The loans outstanding on 31st March, 1905, amounted to £35,878,591 12s. 11d. and the payments in respect of loans for the year ending 31st March, 1905, to £2,210,964. The figures for outstanding loans and for payments in respect of loans for the year ended 31st March, 1906, are not yet available.

  Salaries of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the number of teachers who entered the service of the National Board since 1st April, 1900, who are in charge of schools with averages under sixty, and are paid a higher salary than £70 per annum (exclusive of residual capitation grant or results for Irish or mathematics); and whether he can state the reasons assigned by the Commissioners for paying these teachers this higher rate of salary.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that there are twelve such teachers as are referred to in the Question. In three cases the salaries include bonuses of £9 each, which the teachers were granted under the Fourth Schedule to the Irish Education Act of 1892 while serving as assistant teachers. In one case the teacher was granted the special salary on account of a previous service of nearly twelve years in England. In three cases the teachers had served as substitute teachers prior to 1st April, 1900, and were allowed credit for this service when their salaries were fixed on permanent appointment. In the remaining cases the strict application of the rules regarding salaries in force in 1901–2 would, in the judgment of the Commissioners, have operated inequitably, and these and similar cases were, under the powers then possessed by the Board, specially considered.

  Scottish Valuation Bill—Date of Introduction.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Prime Minister if he can state whether the Valuation Bill for Scotland will be introduced before the Witsuntide Recess.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) Yes, it will be introduced next Monday under the ten minutes rule.

  Telegraphists and Clerical Duties.
  MR. A. DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has issued a general instruction that telegraphists are to be given opportunities to acquire a knowledge of clerical duties that are usually performed by senior telegraphists or overseers; and whether he will direct that at Edinburgh steps should be taken to institute a rotary system in accordance with his expressed desire.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) After giving careful consideration to the question, I have decided that the system of employing sorting clerks and telegraphists in rotation upon the simpler writing duties referred to should be extended so far as existing conditions and arrangements will allow. Steps will be taken in this direction at Edinburgh, as at other offices, but the arrangements which it will be practicable to adopt will vary in different cases.

  Pay of Established Chargemen of Labourers in Portsmouth Dockyard.
  Mr. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many established chargemen of labourers there were altogether on the 23rd April in the constructive department of Portsmouth Dockyard, and how many of these were receiving the maximum rate of pay, and the dates when they received such maximum rate; whether he will give similar information with respect to hired chargemen of labourers; and whether there have been any additions or variations since the 23rd April.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) On the 23rd April there were three established chargemen of labourers in the constructive department at Portsmouth, all of whom were receiving the maximum rate of pay. The dates on which they received the maximum rates were 1st March, 1897, 10th July, 1897, and 1st April, 1905, respectively. At the same time there were three hired chargemen of labourers borne in that department, none of whom were in receipt of the

  205
  maximum rate of pay. No additions or variations have been made since the 23rd April.

  Arterial Drainage Commission—Issue of Appendix to Report.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say when the Appendix to the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Appendix to the Report of this Commission was laid upon the Table on the 2nd instant, and I understand that His Majesty's Stationery Office will be in a position to circulate copies in the course of next week.

  Foreign Legislation on Gambling in in Options and Futures.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Texas Legislature has recently passed an anti-option Bill which absolutely prohibits trading in cotton futures; and that Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana are the only States in which such legislation has not been passed; and whether, under the circumstances, he will take steps to obtain full information on this recent legislation in the United States of America from His Majesty's representatives abroad, and issue the same for the benefit of both Houses as a Supplementary Parliamentary Paper to the one just issued on the Reports of the Canadian Government and His Majesty's representatives abroad on legislative measures respecting gambling in option and future contracts as regards foodstuffs.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I will endeavour to obtain information with regard to recent legislation on this subject in each of the United States and to issue it in the form of a Return.

  Vaccination Bill—Compensation to Vaccination Officers.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what provision he proposes to make for the compensation of the vaccination officers, who will lose
  206
  the greater part of their fees if his Bill passes into law.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not propose to make provision on this subject in the Bill.

  The National Physical Laboratory Inquiry Committee.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that distrust of the Committee now inquiring into the management of the National Physical Laboratory, on the ground that two of its members are also members of the executive of the laboratory, has been expressed and has received no public contradiction; and will he give effect to the same and allay the anxiety created by the competition of an institution receiving a Government subsidy with private and professional interests in making commercial tests.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have already informed the honourable Member, in reply to two previous Questions, that I see no grounds for the distrust to which he refers; and I have also expressed the opinion that the composition of the Committee should command the confidence of all impartially-minded persons. To these replies I have nothing to add.

  Payment of Income-tax by Co-operative Trading Societies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware of the partial or total freedom from assessment to income-tax of limited liability, joint stock, Civil Service, Army and Navy, and co-operative societies; whether he will adopt the scheme as submitted by the Central Agency, Traders Defence Associations, for the assessment of Income Tax of these bodies, seeing that the Income Tax Committee admitted that, if put into operation, it would bring in about two millions sterling annually to the Treasury; and whether, in the event of his not adopting the scheme, he will appoint a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire fully into this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Societies like the Civil Service and the Army and Navy Stores, and other limited liability

  207
  and joint stock co-operative societies (so-called), are directly assessed to income-tax on their profits just like other trading companies. The exemption from direct assessment is confined to industrial co-operative societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. This was very fully considered by the late Lord Ritchie's Committee in 1905 (see paragraphs 130–140 of their Report [Cd. 2575]), and they came to the conclusion that no case was made out for altering the law. I see no reason for any further inquiry. The scheme of the Central Agency of the Traders Defence Associations was for the imposition of a special tax, assessed on a different basis from the income-tax, upon these associations. I am not aware that this drastic suggestion has received support from anyone except from its own authors.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Obsolete War Ships.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what were the original prices of the two war vessels last sold from the Holy Loch, when were they built, and what prices they have now brought; whether he will consider whether better figures could be obtained if no condition was attached insisting on the breaking up of the vessels; and if he will take steps to alter this condition.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The ships to which my hon. friend refers are the "Conqueror" and "Undaunted." The "Conqueror" was completed in 1886 at a cost of £401,991, and fetched £16,800. The "Undaunted" was completed in 1889 at a cost of £273,737, and fetched £14,400. The question of the conditions of sale, which is not merely a question of finance, is under consideration.

  Army Stores for South Africa.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the value and description of the principal items of supplies and stores sent to South Africa in 1906 for the use or consumption of the military forces stationed there; and how much of these
  208
  were purchased in the United Kingdom and foreign countries respectively.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The following figures show the value of the principal supplies sent to South Africa for the year ending 31st March, 1906:—Purchased in the United Kingdom—provisions, £19,281; disinfectants, £157; fuel and light, £2,260; forage, £10,846. In addition to the above, £2,288 and £4,345 were expended in British Colonies and foreign countries respectively for preserved meat. As regards warlike stores sent to South Africa as distinguished from supplies, the value could perhaps be ascertained, but it would be impossible to trace their origin.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the value of the principal items of stores and supplies purchased in 1906 in South Africa for the use or consumption of the military forces stationed there; and how much of these stores or supplies were obtained in South Africa or were imported.
  MR. HALDANE: These figures could only be obtained by a reference to South Africa. Their collection would, I am afraid, entail much labour.

  Army Billets.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office that innkeepers should be required to provide billets for more men and horses than their promises can accommodate, being thereby compelled to procure accommodation on other premises at a financial loss to themselves; and whether he will issue instructions that in future no person shall be required to provide greater accommodation than his premises afford.
  MR. HALDANE: The allocation of the numbers of horses and men to billets does not rest with the military authorities, but with the local police authorities.

  Conversion of Rifles.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by what date it is expected that the conversion of the

  209
  44,000 rifles for which a sum has been taken in the Estimates for 1907–8 will be completed.
  MR. HALDANE: It is hoped to complete the conversion of these rifles by the end of the financial year.

  Disturbances in Eastern Bengal.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement to the House regarding disturbances reported in the Mymensingh district, and in other parts of Eastern Bengal; and whether he can give an assurance that the local authorities are co-operating with the leaders of both communities in restoring those friendly feelings between Hindus and Mahomedans which prevailed in that province before the recent partition of Bengal.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I have received no official reports of the alleged disturbances; but the hon. Member's own experience as a servant of the Crown will bear me out when I express my belief that it is the desire of every member of the Indian services that all classes of His Majesty's subjects shall live at peace with one another.
  Later,
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information about recent occurrences in India which have been the cause of some anxiety in the House, and on which, I am sure, information is anxiously desired.
  MR. MORLEY: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite within his rights in asking a question of this kind, and I have no doubt the country is anxious. I received last night a telegram from the Viceroy. I cannot report it all to the House, for a pretty obvious reason, but I may mention this. In view of the existing situation in the Punjab, Sir Denzil Ibbetson, whom I have already described as one of the ablest and most experienced administrators, now Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, made a formal official application to the Government of India for the arrest and deportation of two of the most prominent agitators,
  210
  under Regulation III of 1818. The Government of India were unanimously of opinion that immediate action was necessary, and the warrants were accordingly issued yesterday. I may explain that deportation does not mean in this case deportation from India, but from one province to another.
  SIR H. COTTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the two persons against whom warrants have been issued?
  MR. MORLEY: I must decline at the present stage to state the names, but they will in due course by made known.

  Sir J. L. Mackay's Speech on India and Preferential Tariffs.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the views enunciated by Sir J. L. Makay on behalf of India at the Colonial Conference, on the question of preferential tariff, were given on the authority of the Indian Council of State, or the Viceroy, or the Secretary of State for India; and, if not, on whose authority, by resolution or otherwise, were the statements made.
  MR. MORLEY: Sir James Mackay was deputed by me, as Minister responsible for India, to take my place at the Conference. He is a Member of the Council of India, with peculiarly extensive knowledge of all the facts of Indian trade and commerce, and I assumed that this knowledge would be of value as a contribution to the discussions of the Conference. Of course I was acquainted with his opinions on the controversy as to preference. He made his statements on his own authority, but his statements of fact do not seem to have been shaken, and in his inferences from them both I and other members of His Majesty's Government who were present entirely concur.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked if Sir James Mackay had consulted in any way the chambers of commerce of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, and the other great centres of India, or firms in this country trading with India.
  MR. MORLEY: What consultations Sir James Mackay had I do not know,

  211
  but I may state that he was himself for many years resident in and connected with trade in India, and knows thoroughly well what are the views of the trading community in India.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Was he engaged in trade in India?
  MR. MORLEY: Certainly—so I understand.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir James Mackay was for several years president of the chamber of commerce of Calcutta?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can supplement that information by saying whether Sir James Mackay represents the opinions of the chamber of commerce of Calcutta at the present time.
  MR. MORLEY: I must have notice of that, but I do not know that it conies within my Department to find out the opinions of the Calcutta Chamber of Commerce.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the free trade policy pursued in India is destroying the native industry?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Imperial Conference Reports.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies if Lord Elgin is aware that dissatisfaction prevails among the colonial statesmen attending the Imperial Conference concerning the abridgements of their speeches issued by the Colonial Office to the Press; and if, having regard to the importance of no misunderstanding arising hereafter concerning their utterances or the statements of members of the Government of the United Kingdom and the statistics produced, he will undertake that a verbatim report of the whole proceedings shall be laid before Parliament by 1st July.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No, Sir. The Secretary of State is not aware of the existence
  212
  of the dissatisfaction referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. As has been repeatedly pointed out, it is for the Conference itself to decide the question of the publication of its proceedings, and no decision has yet been taken. If it is decided to publish, the Papers will be laid as soon as is found practicable, but no definite date can be given.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether a verbatim report of the proceedings in the Conference had been taken by a person experienced in taking verbatim reports and whether, if the members of the Conference so desired, the proceedings could be published in extenso.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The most full and careful and, I think, excellent record has been kept of every word spoken at the Conference, and is now being corrected by the members who took part in the discussion. I have every reason to believe that publication will be made of the discussion.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: In full?
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made by any of those taking part in the proceedings of the Imperial Conference respecting the inadequacy or inaccuracy of the official reports of those proceedings issued to the Press; and whether he will submit to the Conference the desirability of their sanctioning the issue of a verbatim report of the proceedings as early as possible.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN,): I am not aware that any such representations have been made and, as I have repeatedly explained, all steps with regard to a report of the proceedings are entirely for the discretion of the Conference.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that one of the most important speeches made at the Imperial Conference was incorrectly summarised, and that no statement to that effect was sent to the Press for several days?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have just said I have no control over the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will state who is the official responsible for preparing the published précis of the proceedings of the Colonial Conference; and whether the précis are in all cases submitted for the approval of the members of the Conference before being issued to the Press.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The précis are prepared by the officials of the Colonial Office who are acting as Secretaries to the Conference. I am informed that it has not been found practicable in most cases, for want of time, to obtain the approval of members of the Conference to the précis of their speeches.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, how the figures relating to the incidence of the Canadian tariff on United Kingdom and United States produce, respectively, were obtained; and whether the method employed is the same as that adopted by the Board of Trade for the calculations published in the Memorandum X. of the Second Fiscal Blue-book.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The figures which I used represent in each case the percentage proportion of duty actually collected to value of all goods imported into Canada from the two countries respectively. The method adopted by the Board of Trade in the Memorandum referred to was a different one, and was selected (as is there explained) for a particular purpose—viz., the comparison of the incidence of the tariffs of different countries upon the principal articles of British export trade, having regard to the relative importance of those articles to that trade as a whole.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the official Report of his address to the Imperial Conference, if he can state what was the value of United Kingdom goods imported into the
  214
  Australian Commonwealth in 1906; and what would be the approximate value of these goods affected by the proposed scheme of Australian preference
  MR. ASQUITH: The figures for 1906 are not as yet available.

  The Imperial Conference and Irish Home Rule.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Deakin, who have, in their own Parliaments, supported, by speech as well as by vote, the principle of Home Rule for Ireland, have expressed a desire to raise the question at the present Imperial Conference; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will invite a discussion on the subject, as being a matter of importance to the whole of the Empire.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that Sir Wilfred Laurier and Mr. Deakin have not expressed a desire to raise the question of Home Rule for Ireland at the Conference; and it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to invite the Conference to discuss this subject, but we have no desire to slam the door.

  Sir Alexander Swettenham.
  MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether an offer was made to Sir Alexander Swettenham to withdraw Lord Elgin's message of censure if Sir Alexander Swettenham would withdraw his resignation of the Governorship of Jamaica.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  MR. HADDOCK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State for War submitted his telegram, relating to the action of Sir Alexander Swettenham, to the Foreign Office before transmitting it to the United States Government.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TOTHE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir E. GREY): The Secretary of State for War consulted both the

  215
  Foreign Office and the Colonial Office in any action he took in this matter.

  Cotton Growing in British East Africa.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government, in order to encourage the cultivation of cotton in British East Africa, has granted a subsidy and given special facilities to any company which is also engaged in other trades and industries than the cultivation of cotton; and whether the Government will in future make it a condition of any similar grant to any person or company that such person or company is engaged in no trade or industry other than that in respect of which the grant is made.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Government has agreed to pay £1,000 a year for three years from the funds of the East Africa Protectorate towards the cost of the experimental work in connection with cotton growing to be undertaken by the British Cotton Growing Association provided that the association spend at least an equal amount from their own funds upon experimental work—making not less than £2,000 a year in all. The association are co-operating in the matter of growing cotton with a company called the British East Africa Corporation Limited, but no subsidy or special facilities have been or will be granted by the Government to the company, and payment of the contribution to the association will only be made upon proof that at least twice the amount of the contribution has been bona fide expended upon experimental work.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether, before any subsidies were granted, a railway in Northern Nigeria would be considered by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. CHURCHILL: We are considering the question of a railway in Northern Nigeria, but we are also facilitating the work of the British Cotton-Growing Association in developing the sources of the cotton supply in different parts.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether it was not the fact that cotton was not
  216
  indigenous in any part except Northern Nigeria.
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that the cotton in East Africa and Uganda was very good.

  Trade with the Volta District.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the amount of our trade with the Volta district during each of the past four half-years; what is the charge annually levied as canoe tax on the Volta, and whether it is levied on all using the river; what is the tax levied upon salt there; and whether he has received Reports that these taxes have resulted in British trade being diverted to the German traders in Togoland.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Separate statistics of the trade with the Volta district are not available. An annual licence is payable for all canoes at the rate of 1s. for canoes not exceeding 25 feet in length, the rate for larger canoes being proportionately higher. The tax on salt referred to is really a ferry toll, varying from 1s. to 5s. a load according to the distance of the ferry from the mouth of the river. Reports received from the Governor do not support the view that the effect of the tolls is to divert British trade; he is of opinion that their abolition would have that effect.

  St. Lucia Riots.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give further information as to the state of affairs in St. Lucia and the nature and extent of the riots.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The following telegram was received from the Governor on the 2nd May: "2nd May, 'Indefatigable' arrived 1st May. Detachment of Royal Marines relieve Barbados police Dennery for a short time. Roseau, Culdesac, Vieuxfort factories at work, Dennery partly working. Coalheavers on learning that trade leaving port relinquished recent rise wages continuing work at former rates subject to minor increases. Barbados

  217
  police returning, position highly satisfactory." In a further telegram dated 5th May, the Governor reported that he was sailing for Grenada on that day. It may, therefore, be assumed that the disturbances are at an end.

  Warships in West Indian Waters.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of recent events, any request has been put forward by the Colonial Office to the Admiralty for the provision of more vessels for service in West Indian waters.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In view of recent events the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have decided to detail a cruiser in addition to H.M.S. "Indefatigable" for temporary service in West Indian waters. The general question has been receiving, and will continue to receive, the careful attention of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the cruiser is likely to be?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think the cruiser is called the "Scylla," a sister ship of the "Indefatigable."

  New Hebrides—Female Labour.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Return of the numbers of women and girls under age who are to be employed under the New Hebrides Convention will be issued.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to give any estimate of the number of females, if any, who will be employed under the labour clauses of the New Hebrides Convention, and I may add that it would be impossible in many cases to ascertain whether or not they are under the age of twenty-one. It is to be presumed, however, that the number of females employed will at least be considerably smaller when the Convention comes into operation than at present. There are now, and have hitherto been, no restrictions whatever on the employment of women and children by British subjects in the New Hebrides.

  Jamaica Earthquake—Government Grant.
  MR. O. C. PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is now possible to announce the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to the question of Imperial assistance to the island of Jamaica.
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have decided, in answer to the representations which have been made on behalf of Jamaica, to make a free grant of £150,000 in aid of the sufferers from the earthquake in that island, and also to make a loan of £800,000 to the Colonial Government mainly for rebuilding purposes. A supplementary Estimate providing for the sum of £150,000 will be laid before the House as soon as possible, and when the terms of the loan have been finally settled, they will be embodied in a Bill.

  Labour on the Rand.
  MR. J. WARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention had been called to the strike of white miners in the Rand gold mines and if he had any information to give the House with regard to this serious dispute; were the disturbances due to an attempt on the part of the mine-owners to engage Chinese labour on work formerly done by white workmen, contrary to the stipulations of the Chinese Labour Ordinance; and what action was it proposed to take in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had no information with regard to the reported strike other than that contained in the newspapers, but he had every confidence that the local Government of the Transvaal would be fully able to deal with any situation that might arise there.

  Income-Tax Refunds.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much income-tax was refunded under the provisions of Section 133 of the Income-tax Act, 1842, in respect of income-tax overpaid in each of the last three years, viz., in 1904, 1905, and 1906.
  MR. ASQUITH: The figures cannot be given with exact precision. But approximately the following were the

  219
  amounts of tax repaid under the provisions of Section 133 of the Act of 1842 (as amended) in the years named:—1903–4, £340,000; 1904–5, £430,000; 1905–6, £500,000.

  Naturalisation Fees.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether persons naturalised in the British Colonies have the same status in the United Kingdom as in the Colonies; and whether he will take advantage of the presence of the Colonial Premiers in this country to promote an agreement to secure a moderate and uniform fee for the privilege of becoming a British citizen throughout the Empire.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer on behalf of my right hon. friend. The whole of the important question of naturalisation throughout the Empire is being considered by the Colonial Conference. Beyond this I can make no statement, except to say that under the existing law naturalisation conferred in a Colony does not extend to this country or to other Colonies.

  Crimes by Aliens.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is able to state how many crimes were committed by aliens in London during 1906.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is impossible to say how many crimes have been committed by aliens, in London or elsewhere; but the hon. Member will find in the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Down, on March 26th,† a statement covering the last five years for which figures are available of the number of persons received into London prisons on conviction, summary or other, who, according to their own statements, were born in foreign countries.

  Crime in Lincolnshire.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say, approximately, how many of the
  †See (4) Debates, clxxi., 1648.
  220
  1,218 crimes and 14,200 offences in Lincolnshire in 1905 were committed in the Brigg Division of that county; how many appear under each of the headings of serious crime; and if he will say how he proposes to deal with the condition of the Brigg Division.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no figures in my possession showing the number of crimes and offences commuted in the Brigg Division apart from the rest of the county, and I have no reason to suppose that any action is required on my part with regard to the matter.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: Is there any agrarian crime in this division?
  MR. MOORE: And have there been any cases of juries refusing to convict in the face of the evidence?
  MR. DELANY: Have Brigg juries ever been packed?
  MR. FLAVIN: Have both crime and the population in the division increased since the last election?
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is all very interesting, but I am afraid I cannot go into these Questions.

  Police Promotion Regulations in Cumberland.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that the Cumberland Standing Joint Committee has instructed the chief constable only to promote such police officers as will consent to postpone their right of retirement upon pension beyond the period mutually contracted for at the time of their joining the force, in pursuance of the Police Superannuation Act, 1890; and whether, seeing that this course is contrary to the statutory rights of the police officers affected, he will communicate with the authorities concerned.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The same course as that taken by the Cumberland Standing Joint Committee has been taken from time to time by other police authorities from 1892 onwards. I am

  221
  advised that it is in conformity with the terms of the statute.

  Stepney Parliamentary Register.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the proportion of foreign-born voters to British-born in the various wards of the Stepney Parliamentary area.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information as to the birthplace of voters, nor is there any means that I am aware of for obtaining such information.

  Case of Frederick Thomas Hemsley.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a decision has yet been reached with reference to the case of Frederick Thomas Hemsley, who was sentenced on 10th April to five years detention at Redhill reformatory school.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have carefully considered this case, and while I am convinced that the only object the magistrates had in view in taking the course they did was to benefit the boy, I have decided, in all the circumstances, that Hemsley may be discharged.

  Compulsory Weighing in the Iron and Steel Trades.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the inquiry into the need for compulsory weighing and measuring in connection with the iron and steel trades he will appoint a representative from Scotland to the Committee, in view of the fact that these trades in that country employ a large number of workmen.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion; but I prefer to retain the Committee as it is, unless I find that the conditions under which these industries are carried on in Scotland are so different from those obtaining in England as to make separate representation indispensable.

  Wages in the English Cotton Trade.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the amount paid in the English cotton trade per week in wages
  222
  per 10,000 spindles and per 100 looms respectively.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the Board of Trade make the inquiries?

  Value of Imports for the Colonies.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount in millions sterling of the imports into this country from the Colonies for the year 1905.
  MR. KEARLEY: The total values as shown in the United Kingdom Trade Accounts were as follows:—From self-governing Colonies, £72,000,000; from British India, £36,000,000; from all British possessions, including the self-governing Colonies and India, £127,750,000. These values are "c.i.f." at port of arrival.

  Exports to British Garrisons Abroad.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any record is kept of the exports of stores and supplies for British garrisons stationed abroad; and whether he can state the value of the principal items exported to South Africa for the use or consumption of the military and naval forces stationed in that country.
  MR. KEARLEY: No account is taken in the official trade statistics of goods shipped by His Majesty's Government for the use of His Majesty's Forces abroad.
  MR. REMNANT: Will the Board in future keep distinct records of all goods supplied to the different stations abroad?

  London Local Taxation Returns.
  MR. DICKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the reason why the Local Taxation Returns of the expenditure of the local authorities in London for the year 1904–5 are not yet published; whether the delay in publication is greater than it has been in former years; and whether he can make

  223
  arrangements whereby the audited accounts of these authorities may be in the possession of the public within twelve months after the close of their financial year.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): There has been some delay, due to various causes, in the issue of certain parts of the Local Taxation Returns for the year 1904–5. The part which includes abstracts of the accounts of the several metropolitan authorities is, however, in an advanced state of preparation, and will shortly be issued. I am afraid that it is not practicable to issue these Returns within twelve months after the end of the financial year to which they relate.

  London Electoral Lists.
  MR. DICKINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the council of a metropolitan borough has intimated to the town clerk that he is not to expend the same amount of money in preparing the list of electors as that which he expended at the last revision, and which was approved as proper and reasonable by the revising barrister; whether, as tinder the London Government Act, 1899, the town clerk is specially charged with the powers, duties, and liabilities of the overseers with respect to the preparation of lists of voters, the borough council has any power to restrict him in the execution of this duty; and whether, as there is a statutory obligation upon the town clerk to inquire and ascertain with respect to every dwelling-house whether any person is entitled to be registered as a voter, the Board can take any steps to ensure that the proper measures are adopted to make the lists of electors as complete and accurate as possible.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have no information as to the case referred to in the first part of the Question, but I may say generally that I am not aware that a borough council would be empowered to restrict the town clerk in the execution of the duty devolving upon him under the London Government Act in relation to the preparation of lists of voters. I have, however, no control over either the borough council or the town clerk in the matter.

  Glasgow Telephone Employees.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to extend to the telephone employees, lately transferred from the Glasgow Corporation, the terms of transfer promised by the late Postmaster-General to the employees of the National Telephone Company to be transferred to the Post Office in 1911, and if the terms to be accorded will be retrospective; whether he has been asked to receive a deputation from the two unions representing the Glasgow employees; and, if so, when he proposes to see such a deputation.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I am now engaged in settling the establishment of the telephone operators lately transferred from the Glasgow Corporation. The conditions will be largely the same as those arranged for the transfer of the National Telephone Company's staff in 1912, but the circumstances are not identical, and certain of the conditions in the latter case will not be applicable in the Glasgow case. There does not seem to be any advantage in receiving a deputation at the present time.

  Religious Tests in Training Colleges.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will refrain from giving grants to those training colleges for elementary school teachers which impose the condition that candidates who desire to enter these colleges should be compelled to submit to confirmation and to the creeds and catechisms of any particular church inconsistent with the religious belief and conviction of the candidate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): Pending the issue of the Training College Regulations, which I hope will take place very shortly, I regret I cannot make any statement as to the conditions of the admission of students which will in future be imposed.

  Supreme Court of Judicature Clerks.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of clerks in

  225
  the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature who have served for forty years and upwards, and their respective ages.
  MR. RUNC1MAN: The particulars for which the hon. Member asks are given me as follows:—Total number 11.
  Ages—Years.
  64, 59, 64, 60, 60, 65, 60, 59, 70, 61, 59.
  Length of Service—Years.
  43, 42, 43, 45, 43, 48, 43, 42, 41, 41, 41.

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how many foreign trawlers other than Norwegian have been reported fishing in the Moray Firth in the course of the last six months; whether any of those have been examined by the Scottish authorities; and whether any English fishermen have been reported on board.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): During the past six months five foreign trawlers other than Norwegian have been observed. On four Belgian vessels no Englishmen were reported to be on board. On one Swedish vessel the whole crew except flagmaster were English.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will these Englishmen also be prosecuted?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No doubt.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: On what authority are these foreign vessels boarded by British officers?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I cannot say; I only know what the Fishery Board have reported to me.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: How can information be obtained unless the boats are boarded?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will leave it to my hon. friend to say.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Is there any understanding between the two Governments?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Land Court Receivers.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that ability to make the most of property for the benefit of owners and money lenders is the sole qualification required in the appointment of receivers over estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court; that prices to be advanced by the State are now commonly fixed on the recommendations of these men, without any independent inquiry on behalf of either purchasers or State; and, if so, can he see his way to imposing competent inspection in all cases of sale.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. In the case of estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court an inspection of the tenant's holding is made by the Land Commission in every case in which the tenant applies for an advance for the purchase of his holding. The Land Commission have full power to make or refuse the advance applied for, or to sanction an advance of less amount. The Land Judge informs me that it is not the case that the prices to be advanced are fixed on the recommendations of the receivers, and he entirely repudiates the suggestion contained in the first part of the Question.
  MR. FLAVIN: Where a tenant buys within the zones and has no stock on the land, what means have the Estates Commissioners of ascertaining what security there is for the advance?
  MR. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Burrowes Estate Agreements.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of the Burrowes Estate, in which, because the tenants have signed so-called voluntary agreements, the Land Judge desires public money to be advanced to the money lenders, and those tenants to be made liable to repay, with interest, the full value of the owners' property, with the full value of the tenants' property and improvements added, and £350 in excess of this gross sum for which there is no security; will

  227
  that advance be peremptorily prevented; and, seeing that this is common practice where the zones prevent its detection, does he propose to empower the Irish Council to deal with it.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Land Judge that in this case the tenants voluntarily entered into an agreement for the purchase of their holdings at prices which would give them a reduction of 7s. in the pound on first term rents and 4s. 6d. on second term rents. The Estates Commissioners made an offer under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 for the purchase of the estate with the object of reselling it to the tenants. The price offered by the Commissioners was less than that which the tenants had agreed to pay, but the Commissioners declined to increase their offer, and as the incum-brancers were prepared to accept the lesser sum, the Land Judge approved of the sale.

  Irish Land Purchase Arrears.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of cases in which proceedings involving cost have been initiated by or on behalf of the Irish Land Commission for recovery of arrears of instalments and of rents respectively in operations under the Land Act of 1903, from the 1st November 1903 to the 31st March 1907.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the preparation of Returns giving the precise information asked for in the Question would occupy much time, and would necessarily interfere with the work of collecting annuities. It will probably be sufficient for the hon. Member's purpose to state that on 1st December 1906, there were 32,449 payers of annuities under the Act of 1903. In March 1907 the Commissioners found it necessary to direct proceedings against 469 of these persona for the recovery of arrears. Two hundred and forty-nine of these have since paid, and the proceedings against the remaining 220 are in various stages. If the hon. Member will refer to the Annual Reports of the Land Commission, he will find in the Appendices full particulars of every annuity in arrear for one year and upwards.

  Irish Tenant Rights
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any calculation or estimate has been made of the value of the tenant-right or occupation interest and improvements in tenanted land throughout Ireland which Section 1 of the Act of 1881 empowers tenants to sell for the best price that can be got for the same; and, if not, in view of the confiscation of this property by way of sale to its owners, and a general repudiation of the liability, does he contemplate any scheme for ascertaining the value of this property and securing it to its owners.
  MR. BIRRELL: When a fair rent is fixed by the Land Commission the particulars of all sales of the tenancy which have taken place since 1870 are set out in the Schedule recorded by the Court, as well as the capital value of all improvements allowed to the tenant. In the opinion of the Land Commission no other calculation or estimate could be made. The right of the tenant to sell his tenancy under Section 1 of the Act of 1881 is subject to the landlord's right of pre-emption. When the landlord exercises that right and the parties disagree as to the price, the true value of the tenancy is fixed by the Court. According to the definition adopted by the Court of Appeal, the true value of the tenancy is that which would be given for the holding by a thoroughly solvent and prudent man who intended to make the rent out of it and a fair profit on his capital.

  Dingle Harbour.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dingle Harbour Board have applied for a grant for the extension of the pier and the dredging of the habour; that they spent all their available funds in dredging last year and left the work very incomplete; and that the fishing industry, which is one of the most important in the West of Ireland, is very seriously injured owing to insufficient dredging; and whether, seeing that if something is not done soon a number of fishermen will be thrown out of employment, he will ask to have the Department's dredger sent down for a few months.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to refer to my Answer to the hon. Member's previous Question of 18th April,† I am informed that the engagements for the present season already made for the dredger belonging to the Department of Agriculture render it almost certain that the vessel will not be free to do any work at Dingle this year.

  Annagh Bogs, Buttevant.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the circumstances connected with Annagh bogs, Churchtown, Buttevant, county Cork; are they aware that, on the sale of the Egmont Estate in 1889, the tenants on the property we reassured that these lands were to be sold to them at reasonable terms, notwithstanding which promise, Captain Trench, agent to the estate, was recognised as tenant by the landlord, and subsequently purchased them at a reduced figure, with the result that he now holds these lands for which the tenants formerly paid,£174 yearly at an annual rent of £16; and whether, in view of the promises held out to the former tenants, and the fact that the State money was advanced to this gentleman to enable him to carry out the purchase, the Commissioners will communicate with Captain Trench with a view to inducing him to sell these lands to the former holders on reasonable terms.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that the holding referred to in the Question was purchased in 1901 by Captain Trench as tenant in occupation. The purchase price was £400, of which the purchaser paid £100 in cash and £300 was advanced under the Land Purchase Acts. The latter amount has since been redeemed. The Land Commission have no information that any such promise as is averred in the Question was made to the tenants of the estates.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the Land Commissioners further inquire into the matter?
  MR. BIRRELL: The purchase has been completed and the annuity redeemed. Captain Trench is now the owner.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1129–30.

  Lord Inchiquin and his Tenants.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Inchiquin has caused his solicitor to threaten the tenants on his estate with writs for the payment of rents, as the tenants would not agree to pay the purchase price demanded for the estate; whether the Estates Commissioners will negotiate with the landlord for a purchase, seeing that the tenants at a public meeting at Newmarket-on-Fergus, presided over by the Rev. M. Hogan, Adm., have declared that they are ready to buy at fair prices; or whether he proposes to take any stops to prevent the unrest that will arise if Lord Inchiquin is allowed to press for the payment of excessive rents.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the matter of fact alleged in the Question. No proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to have been instituted before the Commissioners, and they have received no request that they should intervene as conciliators under the Lord. Lieutenant's Regulations. If any such application should be made to them, they will give it due consideration.
  MR. HALPIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the tenants offered eighteen and a-half years purchase and some twenty and a-half?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to that.

  Roscomroe Grazing Farm Dispute.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Luttrell, who for many years has held a grazing farm on a yearly tenancy in the townland of Roscomroe, in the Roscrea Union, has been required by the United Irish League to surrender his tenancy, and has refused; whether he is aware that, on the night of 29th April, Mr. Luttrell's cattle, sheep, and horses were driven off the lands and taken into the town of Roscrea; whether this act was known to be in contemplation, and whether the police made any preparations to prevent it; and what arrangements are being made to prevent a repetition of this act.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Luttrell has informed the police authorities that he received a letter from the local branch of the United Irish League asking him whether he would surrender his grazing farm, and that he refused to do so. The cattle were driven off the farm and left uninjured outside Mr. Luttrell's house in Roscrea early on the morning of the 29th April. It had been threatened that the cattle would be driven off, but owing to the remoteness of the place and to the fact that the date was kept secret, the police were unable to take full measures to prevent the act. The police are doing all that may be possible to prevent a repetition of the occurrence.
  MR. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a yearly tenancy?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. REDDY: It's an eleven months farm.

  Irish Intermediate Education.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the proposed modifications of the intermediate education system in Ireland, embodied in the new programme for 1908, the Board proposes to make two languages, besides English, compulsory; that, by the existing regulations prior to the adoption by this House of the Motion of the hon. Member for West Kerry, only one language, with English, was obligatory, and that this Motion merely put Irish on the same footing as other languages, and, accordingly, that the new Rules are an evasion of the Resolution of the House of Commons on the subject of Irish; is he aware that the English Board of Education pay grants to secondary schools in which no modern language is taught, and in which the needs of the locality are their first consideration, and that the London University course can be passed with only one foreign language; and whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, the Lord-Lieutenant will order the Intermediate Board to withdraw the rule making two languages, with English, obligatory.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Rules for 1908, having lain upon the Table for the
  232
  specified time without disallowment, are now in force and cannot be altered. I find that my predecessor fully considered the question now raised by the hon. Member, and I do not therefore propose to enter into it afresh. I would refer to Mr. Bryce's Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for West Leitrim on 19th December last.†
  MR. FLYNNasked if the Motion passed by that House on the subject last May had not been ignored.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the reasons for the action were stated in the Answer he had referred to.
  MR. MOORE: Is it not the fact that the Motion only applied to the Rules for 1907,and that hon. Members made no objection to the Rules for 1908 which are now in force?
  MR. BIRRELL: That is so.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in respect to the Intermediate Education Programme and Rules for 1908, whether the attention of the Lord-Lieutenant was called to that part of the syllabus dealing with arithmetic and algebra; is he aware that on the pass papers arithmetic counts for 30 per cent. only of the entire, whilst algebra counts for 70 per cent., and in the honour papers arithmetic counts for 10 per cent. only and algebra for 90; is he aware that in the examinations for the Second Division Civil Service arithmetic counts for 600 marks and elementary mathematics for 400; and whether the Commissioners will be invited to modify the rule, which acts so disadvantageously on pupils who may be intended for an industrial or commercial career, or for the Civil Service.
  MR. BIRRELL: The relative percentages of the value of arithmetic and algebra under the Rules of the Intermediate Education Board are correctly stated in the Question. The object of the Board is to test whether students of Intermediate Schools have acquired a general education, and accordingly they
  †See (4) Debates clxvii, 1522–23.

  233
  do not require the specialisation in arithmetic which may be necessary in the second division of the Civil Service.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the rule penalises the vast majority who are going in for industrial or commercial and other pursuits suitable to Ireland?
  MR. BIRRELL: There is something in what the hon. Member suggests.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Intermediate Education Programme for 1908, whether the attention of the Lord-Lieutenant was called to Rule 4 before the official sanction was given to the rules; is he aware that in order to pass in experimental science pupils must work through the prescribed course to the satisfaction of an inspector of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and to pass with honours must pass a qualifying practical test by the inspector, and failure to satisfy the inspector in a single practical question involves total disqualification from winning a scholarship or exhibition, no matter how successful the student may be in all other respects; if he can say under what statute, or other enabling power, the Intermediate Commissioners delegated their powers to the officials of another distinct Department; are the Commissioners aware that these inspectors are nominated by the Board of Agriculture independent of examination, and that many of them have no University degree whatever; and whether, in view of the opposition to this rule on the part of many head masters, it will be withdrawn or modified by His Excellency.
  MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Member refers to Regulation 9 (b) (4) of the Programme of the Intermediate Education Board. The arrangement referred to in the Question has been in force since 1902, and the Board hold that they have full statutory power to make such arrangement. The facts are not precisely as stated in the Question, and I am forwarding to the hon. Member a full report on the subject which I have received. As I have already stated the Rules for 1908 are now in force, and cannot be altered.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in connection with the Irish
  234
  Intermediate Education system, whether he is aware that in the years preceding 1906 the programme of future examination was published by the Board once it was laid upon the Table of this House, thus giving head masters' associations and others interested an opportunity of considering it, but that in regard to the new programme for 1908, laid upon the Table late in the autumn session, 1906, no outsider saw a copy of it until the forty days had expired, and that few Members of this House were aware of its provision; and whether, in view of the opposition to the proposed changes contemplated in the new programme, almost unanimously expressed by head masters and head mistresses' associations, he will represent to the Board the necessity for modifying the programme in such a manner as will make it acceptable to educated public opinion in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: Prior to 1906 it was the practice of the Intermediate Education Board to publish their Rules and programmes as soon as they had been laid before Parliament, thereby anticipating the approval of Parliament. In 1906 the Rules for 1907 were disallowed by Parliament after they had been published by the Board. In that case it became necessary for the Board to withdraw the Rules which had been issued, and as these Rules were on sale by booksellers throughout the country it was impossible to secure that all the copies should be returned. In view of the inconvenience thus caused, the Board decided not to publish their Rules for 1908 until they had become indefeasible. It is open to head-masters and others to make representations to the Board in favour of any modifications which they may desire in the Rules for future years.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for many years past the Intermediate Education Board have followed the example of the Department of Technical Instruction and have laid a draft of the programme before the parties interested, and that afterwards two of the Commissioners have met a Committee and discussed details?
  MR. BIRRELL: I think that is a very desirable method.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  235
  Ireland whether the income of the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1890, has declined from the sum of £71,400 in 1900 to £48,225 in 1906, and the rate of payment of the school grant for each successful pupil has been reduced on the following scale within the past four years; in the preparatory grade by 45 per cent., in the junior grade by 28·5 per cent., in the middle grade by 47·0 per cent., and in the senior grade by 46·0 per cent., with corresponding reductions in respect to honour pupils; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that this decrease in the board's income is a direct result of the diminished consumption of drink in Ireland, he will make representation to the Treasury that funds should be supplied from some other source to enable this work of secondary education to be carried on in an efficient manner, and to place the board in such a position that the main source of its income should no longer depend upon the continuance of the consumption of alcoholic drink in Ireland.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the figures quoted in the Question are approximately correct. I am informed, however, that the reduction in the amount of the capitation fees is due mainly to the increase in the numbers of students in the pass and honour lists, and in a less degree to the decrease in the amount received from the Local Taxation Account. The point raised in the latter part of the Question is one which deserves consideration at a suitable opportunity, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement upon it. I should, however, remind the hon. Member that the board's revenue from the Local Taxation Account is not dependent upon the consumption of drink in Ireland alone, but upon the thirst of the United Kingdom generally.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one result of this policy is that the income of the board diminishes proportionately with the increase of temperance in the country?
  MR. BIRRELL: The subject is one which requires consideration.

  Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  236
  Ireland whether arrangements will be made that the next meeting of the All Ireland Council of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction shall not be held until the new vice-president has been appointed and taken up the duties of the position.
  MR. BIRRELL: Arrangements have been made for holding the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture on 16th and 17th instant. Notices to that effect were sent to the members a month ago.
  MR. LONSDALE: Who has been appointed vice-president of the Board?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the Answer.

  Shillelagh Bench of Magistrates.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Shillelagh bench is composed of nine Protestant magistrates and one Catholic, the latter being the ex officio representative of the district council; and whether, in view of the fact that the population of the county is over 80 per cent. Catholic, he will draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the amount of representation of the majority of the people in the Shillelagh Petty Sessions Court.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he believes that two of the nine justices who attend the Petty Sessions mentioned are Catholics: otherwise the facts are as stated in the Question. The Lord Chancellor is considering the question of appointing for this district a gentleman whose name was recently brought before him.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Shillelagh District Council have considered it necessary, in the interests of the public, to pass resolutions calling attention to the uncertain attendance of magistrates at Shillelagh Petty Sessions, the absence of justices not infrequently compelling the adjournment of the Court, thus causing serious loss and inconvenience to litigants; and whether he will communicate with the Lord Chancellor of

  237
  Ireland with a view to providing some remedy in this case.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that there is a fair attendance of magistrates at the Petty Sessions mentioned. During the past year there were two occcasions upon which only one magistrate attended, but on no occasion was the Court adjourned for want of the attendance of a magistrate.

  Land Purchase in Wicklow—Case of Thomas Whelan.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Thomas Whelan, of Aghowle, county Wicklow, is now a defaulting purchaser under the Land Act, 1903; that his holding was recently put up for sale by the Estates Commissioners, but, owing to the amount of the annuity, no bid was made; whether he is aware that Whelan had to sign a second-term agreement before purchasing; that the landlord, Earl Fitzwilliam, charged the tenant twenty-four and a half years purchase, and added to the purchase money two years arrears of rent; that the rateable valuation of the holding, including 5s. for the house, was £1, while the annuity payable on the purchase is £1 9s. 6d.; will he say whether any valuation of Whelan's holding was made before the statutory second term was fixed, or before the sale was sanctioned by the Commissioners; if so, who was the valuer; were the Commissioners satisfied that this was an economic holding; and whether, in the interests of the ratepayers, he will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The tenant purchaser referred to in the Question purchased his holding at a price within the zones under the Act of 1903. Inspection, therefore, was unnecessary. The holding was recently put up for sale owing to the non-payment of a year's annuity, but no bid was received. The second term Tent was fixed by agreement before the Act of 1903 was passed. When such rents are fixed by agreement, the holdings are not inspected by a valuer. I am not aware of any reason why an inquiry into the matter should be held,
  238
  and in any event I have no power to direct such an inquiry.

  Grazing Farms—Protection for Occupiers.
  MR. ARKWRIGHT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many grazing farms were occupied in the counties of Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Leitrim, and Westmeath, on 1st November, 1906; how many have been subsequently surrendered in consequence, or in fear of intimidation; and how many police are now employed in affording protection to the occupiers of grazing farms in the above-mentioned areas.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information which would enable me to reply to the first two parts of the Question. The only method that I am aware of by which the number of occupied grazing farms could be ascertained would be to direct the police to take a census of such farms, and I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by doing so. Assuming that any such farms have been surrendered, it is obvious that though the police might surmise the reasons for such surrender they could have no definite knowledge on the subject. Inquiries are being made as to the last part of the Question, and I shall be prepared to reply if the hon. Member should see fit to renew the inquiry after a few days.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Travelling Veterinary Inspector.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment of travelling veterinary inspector to the Department has yet been made; and, if not, will he see that in making the appointment due regard shall be had to the number of experienced and well-qualified Catholic Irishmen eligible for the post, and also to the desirability of a more equal distribution of public appointments in Ireland, and above all that no further importations shall be made in filling positions under the Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to refer to my Answer to the Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for South Down on 1st instant,†
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 855.

  Irish Finance.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, on what date the sum of £150,000 was transferred from the Petty Sessions Clerks Fund (Ireland) to the credit of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, and how and at what rate of interest has it been invested; has the sum of £70,000 from the Irish Development Grant also been transferred and similarly been invested; whether it is proposed to replace the annual sum of £9,000 intended to be provided last session by the abolition of two Judgeships of the High Court (Ireland) and the reduction of the Irish Lord Chancellor's salary; and whether the contributions of £6,000 per annum from the residue of the Exchequer Grant under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, have been duly made for 1906 and 1907.
  MR. BIRRELL: The sum of £150,000 was transferred, in the shape of investments, from Petty Sessions Clerks Fund to the Labourers Cottage Fund on various dates in November and December last. The investments consist of four per cent. Railway Debenture Stock amounting to £118,000 and Consols amounting to £31,000. The £70,000 from the Irish Development Grant has not yet been transferred, but steps to that end are now being taken. In reply to the third paragraph of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Judicature (Ireland) Bill now before Parliament. The contribution of £6,000 for the year 1906–7 has been paid over to the Local Government Board.

  Swinford Guardians.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Swinford Union Distress Committee on 16th April, 1907, at which allegations of theft were made against two members of the Swinford Board of Guardians; whether the relief works in Swinford have been suspended on account of the thefts, which have been exposed by the Paymaster; whether the Board has condoned or condemned these irregularities; and whether he has received or will call for a Report from the Local Government Board upon the case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have received from the Swinford Distress Committe a resolution in which the Committee make allegations of the nature indicated in the Question against two members of their own body. The Committee have called upon these members to resign, and have asked the Board to take action if they should fail to do so. The matter is under the consideration of the Board.

  Irish Land Purchase Frauds.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the recent judicial comments on the facilities for fraud afforded by the zones in the Land Act of 1903, and the inclusion of extraneous debts, real and fictitious, with the price of land for the purpose of obtaining public money, whether the Treasury will require a record to be kept of all additions to real price, so far as the zone system allows the detection of those additions, and does not empower the Commissioners or any Court to prevent them.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; this is not a matter for the Treasury.

  Irish Board of Works.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in addition to securing for his brother the chairmanship of the Irish Board of Works, and exceptionally rapid advancement for his personal clerks, Sir Robert Holmes has been instrumental in securing appointments in the Irish Civil Service for the following relatives of personal friends, Sir David Harrel, two sons, and Sir Patrick Coll, two sons and a son-in-law; and whether he will take steps to prevent such appointments being made in the future.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to my Answer of the 23rd ultimo.†
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Has not the Irish Lord Chancellor recently appointed his brother-in-law to a very high office?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxii., 1576ဣ7.

  Irish Land Act—Treasury Rules.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the admission of the Treasury that the amendments proposed to be made in the Treasury Rules under the Land Act of 1903 will not in any way secure either the purchasers or the ratepayers against the losses consequent upon the present system of paying money irrespective of value, will the House of Commons be afforded an opportunity of discussing those amendments before their adoption; and, if so, when.
  I beg also to ask the Prime Minister, seeing that exorbitancy of price in excess of value constitutes the greatest danger in connection with land purchase finance, and that the proposed amendments of Treasury Rules afford no protection in that respect, whether the promised discussion of that subject will be so arranged as to allow the method of inflating prices and inflating bonus to be dealt with.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The proposed amendment of the Treasury Rules is for the sole purpose of enabling the working balance on the account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund to be used in order to avoid charging local taxation grants in full with purely temporary charges—viz., arrears and interest on investments accrued but not received. I do not consider that there is any need for discussion on this small amendment. There is no power to deal in the Treasury Rules with the matters referred to in the Questions.

  Carndonagh Mails.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what steps, if any, are being taken to have the grievance in respect of the delivery and despatch of mails to and from Carndonagh remedied; and whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience to the public from the present late delivery, he will inquire into the matter and have an improvement effected.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I sent the hon. Member an Answer yesterday, explaining the circumstances in regard to the service in question.

  Marriage and Hereditary Disease.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that several State legislatures in America have passed Bills to prevent marriages taking place unless both parties are, in the opinion of a qualified physician, free from disease transmissible to their children; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a similar Bill here.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not propose to undertake legislation on this subject this session.

  Butter Bill.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when time will be given to conclude the debate on the Second Reading of the Butter and Margarine Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We hope the Bill will secure its Second Reading to-day.

  Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that owing to the uncertainty as to whether His Majesty's Government will find time to pass an Eight Hours Mines Bill this session considerable unrest prevails among the miners, and that merchants decline to make new coal contracts over next year both for Home and export consumption, he will say if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to pass a Bill of this character during this session; and, if he cannot find time, whether he will ask the House to meet in the autumn to deal with this measure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can hardly give a definite Answer to my hon. friend. The time required for passing a Bill of this sort will depend, of course, upon its reception when presented to the House.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are in this House a large number of Members connected with the mining industry, representing both employers and employed, and would it not therefore be possible for

  243
  this House to deal with the whole Question without taking further evidence.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of it.

  Illegal Fishing Prosecutions in Scotland.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister under what section of the Herring Fishery Act of 1889 the Scottish Office are entitled to prosecute British subjects for alleged illegal fishing in respect to an individual breach of the law or of any Scottish bye-law when no offence has been committed by the vessel or master to whom he is subordinate; whether there is any precedent for prosecuting a subordinate fisherman for any alleged offence at sea by any maritime power adjoining the North Sea or elsewhere; whether, now that the Norwegian Government have come to an understanding with the Scottish Office that they will not support Norwegian masters any more in cases of proceedings against them in Scotland for trawling in the Moray Firth, they will in future consider the desirability and justice of prosecuting the Norwegian master in accordance with precedent as the representative of the owners, and not prosecute English subordinate fishermen who had signed on in Norwegian vessels; and whether the Government will make it officially known at the fishery ports that the Government of Norway have surrendered their right to fish in the prohibited waters of the Moray Firth under the North Sea Convention and international law.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Fishery Board by-law No. 10, issued in terms of Section 7 of the Act, 1889, provides that no person shall use any team or otter trawl, and British subjects offending against this provision are clearly liable to prosecution. I am not aware whether subordinate fishermen have been proceeded against by other maritime powers. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, no surrender, such as is therein mentioned, has been made by the Norwegian Government, but as I informed the hon. Member on the 30th April the Norwegian Government have intimated that orders have been issued to the Fishery Director of
  244
  Norway to warn all owners of Norwegian fishing boats who trawl in the Moray Firth to cease from so doing, and not to expect the support of their Government in the case of proceedings against them in Scotland.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my Question?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If it is usual no doubt it will be done. If it is not usual perhaps the hon. Member will put another Question.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of English fishermen being accorded the same terms as the foreign fishermen?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Mr. Munro Ferguson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Mr. Stewart-Smith.
Report to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PRIMOGENITURE BILL.
  "To alter the Law relating to the descent of land upon an Intestacy," presented by Mr. Arnold Herbert; supported by Mr. Micklem, Mr. Evans, Mr. Stewart-Smith, Mr. Stanger, Mr. Napier, Sir Albert Spicer, Mr. Herbert Craig, and Mr. Haworth; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 4th June, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
  RESTRAINT OF TRADE (SHOPS) BILL.
  "To render null and void certain provisions in shop assistants' agreements," presented by Mr. Seddon; supported by Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Scott, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Price, and Mr. Clement Edwards; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To regulate and control Sunday Trading in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; to be read a second time, upon Wednesday, 5th June, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  PETTY SESSION CLERKS (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland," presented by Mr. Sloan; supported by Mr. Wolff, Mr. Crean, and Mr. Flynn; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [24TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Order read, for further Consideration of First Resolution, "That Income-tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved an Amendment to reduce the income-tax from 1s. to 11d. in the £. He pointed out that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer in their Budget statements had distinctly said that the income-tax payer ought to be the first to receive relief in respect of the extra war taxation, and yet, while indirect taxation had been reduced, the income-tax had remained unchanged since 1904. A high income-tax was an undue burden upon trade and industry, and acted not only upon profits but upon wages, and it reduced, if it did not take away, the great financial reserve which a low income-tax gave us in time of emergency. Another reason against a high income-tax was the fact that the death duties taken together amounted to more than 2s. in the £. Why was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was driven to keep the income-tax at 1s.? It was because during the last thirty or forty years sources of revenue had been dropped which could not be resorted to now. They had been dropped gradually, until the right hon. Gentleman had come down to a very few sources, viz., liquor, tobacco, tea, and sugar. Would the right hon. gentleman or anybody suggest that the duties on these articles could be raised? He thought not. Then, where was he to get his money to meet future expenditure? He was afraid that as the country
  246
  progressed in population and wealth, we should find that our expenditure would go on increasing from year to year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to resort to other sources of revenue. At to what those sources should be, some would suggest that commodities coming from foreign countries should pay a small moderate duty for the use of our markets. It would be in many cases paid by the foreigners themselves, and it would bring in a very large revenue. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to hold some hope that next year, at all events, the income-tax payer would be relieved of a portion of the burden of war taxation which he had borne till now with so much patience.
  MR. FELLseconded the Amendment as a protest against the 1s. rate being considered the normal rate in a time of peace like the present. In the past ten years we had incurred enormous war expenditure, and the income-tax had gone up to as much as 1s. 4d. in the £. But notwithstanding that high rate, the average for the past ten years had only been 11d. and a fraction. If they went back to the Crimean War, 52 years ago, the average for ten years at that time was only 9¼d., and taking the whole sixty years it had been only 7d. in the £. Now in a time of peace they were told it could not be reduced below 1s., and he feared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon that as the normal rate. Mr. Gladstone at one time spoke of abolishing it altogether, but it was clear that such a step was now totally outside the range of practical politics. The normal rate of the income-tax before the war was 8d., and it had stood at that for years. No one expected it to be raised or reduced. But to keep the tax at 1s. was a 50 per cent. increase, and an extremely serious matter. When the tax was raised from 8d. to 1s., and then to 1s. 4d., it was thought the increase would be temporary, and it was paid. But if they made it 1s. and then raised it to 1s. 4d., and then to 1s. 6d., it was very questionable whether it would be paid with the same facility. If the tax was raised above the rate of 8d., the increase came out of the pockets of the saving classes in a cash form, which entailed one of two things, either that

  247
  they had to diminish their expenses, which meant a decrease of their spending power and a consequent decrease of wealth and labour in the country, or it must come out of the amount put aside as savings, which formed the very mainspring of the progress and enterprise of the country. It was the small income-tax payers who really were the saving class, and provided the funds out of which great enterprises were built up. When a war broke out and the income-tax was raised, these people cut down their expenses, probably thinking that the income-tax would shortly come back to its normal rate. But if they saw that the increased tax was going to become permanent, in all probability throughout the country they would cut down their expenses (he would be sorry to think for a moment that they would give up their habits of saving); that would mean a decrease of spending power, and it was on their savings that the tax would bear. He thought that some hon. Members on the other side would agree with them that at a time like the present some effort should be made to reduce this taxation. On these grounds he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'one shilling,' and insert the words 'elevenpence,"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts,)—instead thereof:—
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one shilling,' stand part of the said Resolution."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,.)said it was only out of respect to the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken that he rose to say one or two words on this subject. The case had been put in a very moderate and able way by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ecclesall Division; he had nothing to complain of in regard to the manner in which he had presented it to the House. The main point of his argument seemed to be directed against the expediency of having an income-tax at all except as an emergency tax. To keep the income-tax at some rate or another had necessarily come to be a permanent part of our financial machinery, but the statement had been wrongly imputed to him, though he had dis-
  248
  claimed it more than once, that the income-tax should be kept permanently at 1s. He had never expressed nor held the opinion that the income-tax should permanently remain at the figure of 1s. in the £. Therefore the sole question was whether, having regard to our financial position, any ground had been made out for a reduction. The hon. Gentleman had adduced a new argument or one entirely new in his experience, that if they abolished the income-tax they would put out of employment the persons now engaged in its collection. He had the greatest possible desire not to reduce the revenue, but he did not think that the rentention of a tax would be justified on the ground that its abolition might lead to the diminution of the collecting machinery, and therefore the number of Government employees. But as a matter of fact, if they looked at the past history of the tax, during the years from 1806 to 1816, when the country was very much poorer than it was now, they would find that the tax was at the rate of 2s. in the £, and that burden was willingly borne by our ancestors.
  MR. FELL: That was when there was a war.
  MR. ASQUITHquite agreed. But if they referred to the Crimean War they should also refer to the South African War. He was pointing out that in the early part of last century, when the country was much poorer, our ancestors tolerated an income-tax of 2s. in the £, and managed to live and thrive under that staggering burden.
  MR. FELL: It was taken off immediately.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he agreed that it was taken off immediately; but there was a considerable margin of elasticity between 1s. and 2s., if the tax should ever again be raised to that figure. He did not think that was likely; at least, he hoped not. But, as a matter of fact, they were, under his Budget proposals, giving considerable relief to the income-tax payers of the country, not merely in the case of small incomes, but in the case of earned incomes up to £2,000 a year. These

  249
  incomes would pay 9d. in the £, and when they took into account the abatements which were allowed, together with this relief, they would rind that a very large class, by far the larger body of the income-tax payers, paid on the average not more than 5d., 7d., or 8d. in the £. Therefore, whatever arguments might be adduced in favour of this reduction, he thought they were very considerably minimised when the House took into consideration the actual relief that was being given. He was afraid it was impossible for him to go any further at the present time, and he hoped the House would assent to the retention of the duty at the figure to which it was raised by his predecessor in office.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERurged that there was an obligation on the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to look carefully into the income-tax with a view to placing it on a perfectly fair basis, so that a man, in paying it, could feel that he was only paying what was honestly due from him; and it was for that reason, as regarded the question of unearned income, that he wished to say a few words. One point which he did not think had been dealt with had reference to junior partnerships and this relief of 3d. in the £. Unless some steps were taken to place the matter on a different basis, in the case of a firm making £10,000 per annum, of which the junior partners received £1,000 per annum, the junior partners would have no opportunity or means so to arrange their claim form exemption that they would be able to take advantage of the 3d. in the £, to which they were as much entitled as any other payers of income-tax. Another point was how the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to deal with those concerns which were converted into limited companies. Many small concerns which had a profit of from £1,500 to £2,000 a year were entitled to claim the relief of 3d. in the £. Many businesses, for family or other reasons, were converted into limited companies. The shares in the new concern, representing goodwill or a small amount of capital, would receive dividends, and the question was whether those dividends were to be regarded as unearned income on which no relief was to be given.
  250
  He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was a very larger number who, for certain purposes, had converted their businesses into limited companies, and they would find themselves deprived of the relief given under the Bill. On the principle of averages, a man, when his average increased, was quite properly called upon to pay the income-tax in respect of it. When, on the other hand, his business was decreasing and his profits were going down, when he made a sudden and heavy loss, as from a colliery explosion, or some other adverse incident of business, then, at that very time, when his capital was all important to him, he was penalised by a demand for income-tax, which made the poor man poorer, and placed him in a very serious position. No one could complain if he only paid on the profits for that year, but it would be a most serious thing if a man had to pay when his business was showing a loss. His losses might be such as to make him bankrupt, and at the same time his creditors would have to pay a large amount in respect of income-tax based on profits which did not really exist. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider that question. He thoroughly appreciated the effect of the average, still he thought it was not a right thing, and it ought to be abolished.
  MR. ASQUITH: I shall be very glad to do that.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman was abolishing it in regard to a new business, he did not see why he could not do so in regard to others. There was no fairness whatever in making a man who had lost money pay a heavy sum in income-tax. He was rather sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deal at the Colonial Conference with the question of Colonial companies and income-tax.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have discussed that question with the Colonial Premiers at another conference.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he was glad to hear that. There were many other ways of dealing with preference than

  251
  by duties, and they might very well consider whether they could not deal with this question so that shareholders of companies registered in this country but transacting the whole of their business in the Colonies should not have to pay income-tax both here and in the Colonies. With regard to the question of interest, he urged that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer taxed interest on the credit side, it was only fair and reasonable that he should make an allowance in respect of interest appearing on the debit side. The present practice was an absolutely dishonest attempt to extort money from income-tax payers. So long as they taxed a man's credit interest and did not make an allowance for his debit interest, so long would they have men saying, "We are dishonestly dealt with, and we will do the best we can to put ourselves straight in our own particular way." Honesty was the best policy, but if they swindled they must not be astonished if people endeavoured to get quits with them. In the matter of depreciation, the Inland Revenue distinctly swindled the public.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the only question immediately before the House is the reduction of the tax from 1s. to 11d.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he was contending that it should be re-reduced because the practices of the income-tax officials were not consistent with the principles of common honesty. If the income-tax was to remain at 1s., men ought to be made to feel that they were being honestly dealt with, and were not the victims of oppression. That could only be done if they applied the principles that obtained as between man and man in a mercantile community. If they applied principles which savoured of extortion, there would be a perpetual effort to evade the tax.
  *MR. EVERETTsaid that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was for several years Chancellor of the Exchequer in the late Conservative Government, speaking at Bristol, on 29th September, 1902, said—
  "They would remember that he told them that in the last seven years the ordinary expenditure of the country had increased at no less a rate than £5,500 000 a year! They
  252
  could not go on that way. They must stop that rate of increase. If they did not what would happen? He would tell them. A 1s. income-tax would be utterly insufficient for the needs of the country even in time of peace: and all the people who complained now of the small taxation that had been imposed upon sugar and corn would be face to face with heavy taxation, not only on those articles but perhaps on other great articles of popular consumption. They would have changed their fiscal system from one of light taxation such as had prevailed for forty years, and under which the industries of the country had been enormously developed, to a system of heavy taxation which would keep those industries down."
  There was the real explanation of income tax at 1s. in the £. Hon. Gentleman opposite during their ten years of power had increased the annual expenditure of the nation—chiefly by increase of armaments—by nearer £50,000,000 than £40,000,000 a year. Yet they complained of the taxes their profligate extravagance had made necessary. He hoped hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House would have their support when they endeavoured—as they meant to do—to get reduced the present bloated expenditure upon the Navy and the Army. They wanted the money for old-age pensions, of which he rejoiced to say the Chancellor had now definitely given a promise, for which promise, even if it meant continuance of the income-tax at 1s. in the £ he desired heartily to thank him.
  *MR. GEORGE FABERsaid it was perfectly true that they were not entitled to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out the prospect to the House of Commons that an income-tax of 1s. in the £ must remain for all time, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly did say that—
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to budget not for one year but for several years."
  That indicated that a 1s. income-tax would remain for some years to come. But how did the Chancellor of the Exchequer justify a war income-tax and war indirect taxation in a time of peace? The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "What is a war tax? It is not a tax that is put on to last during a war and to come to an end the moment peace is concluded and your Army is withdrawn from the field. It is a tax which is put on to meet the extra burden imposed on the country by waging war, and

  253
  so long as that extra burden remains—and it remains to the tune of £130,000,000 of extra debt—the claim of a war tax to be removed is, in my opinion, an inadmissible claim."
  The right, hon. Gentleman therefore based his action on the proposition that we were not entitled to peace taxation until this £130,000,000 was paid off. But preaching was one thing and practice another. The preaching of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the impossibility of putting taxation on a peace basis while the war debt remained differed from his practice, because the only new debt reduction this year was £1,500,000, apart from the action of the Old and New Sinking Fund Acts, which was automatic, and this £1,500,000 was ear-marked for the purpose of old-age pensions next year: so that after this year we should be paying nothing at all extra to reduce the national debt. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what exactly he meant when he said in his Budget speech that the delay in the collection of the income-tax was almost entirely due to the persons directly assessed, and to whom he was going to give relief. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "We intend that the English machinery shall be levelled up so that it may with equal efficiency correspond to the admirable machinery at work in Scotland."
  Did he mean by that that the income-tax in England which was not collected until towards the end of the financial year was collected at a much earlier period in Scotland?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that the law was the same for both countries, but the practice was different.
  *MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that he wanted to see how this particular proposition was going to workout. Were the income-tax payers in England to pay at an earlier date than hitherto?
  MR. ASQUITH,on a point of order, asked Mr. Speaker what possible relevance the hon. Gentleman's observations in regard to the screwing up of the collection of the income-tax had to the reduction of
  254
  the income-tax to 11d. as proposed in the Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that it was in order to argue that, if a larger revenue was anticipated from a more rigid system of collection, the income-tax should be smaller in amount.
  *MR. GEORGE FABERsaid that it had appeared to him that the questions he was putting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer were relevant in the sense suggested by Mr. Speaker; and no doubt with his ordinary courtesy the right hon. Gentleman would give him an answer at some later period of the debates on these matters,
  *MR. REESsaid he had asked the other day whether the 1s. income-tax would be paid upon pensions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the question was open to argument. Since then he had received many letters on this subject from many classes of pensioners. He would put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer three typical cases in which he thought the reduced rate of 9d. should be allowed. They were those of a man who had retired from the Irish Constabulary after forty years' service, an English Civil servant who had served for a full pension, and an Indian Civil servant who had served thirty-five years. He contended that the pensions they received and the allowances made in the case of Indian Civil servants to their widows and orphans were nothing but deferred pay, and therefore should not be liable to the full rate of income-tax. He knew there was an impression that Indian Civil servants had large savings, but surely that tradition had gone for ever. Very few of the Indian Civil servants, for instance, brought home any savings after thirty-five years' service, and when they came back it was quite impossible for them to take part in public life, unless they had private resources, and they were, in almost all cases, owing to age and other circumstances, unable to earn any money in England by means of

  255
  other pursuits. He submitted that the Irish, English, and Indian Civil servants were deserving of consideration. [An HON. MEMBER: And the Scottish.] He had always thought the Scottish people were capable of looking after themselves, but he had no objection to say that he thought that the Irish, English, Indian, and Scottish Civil servants deserved consideration. They were now expected to feed other people's children as well as their own, and in this way the rates were ever increasing. An income-tax of £50 on a total income of £1,000 a year was very heavy indeed in the case of men who had been accustomed to good positions and had done the State some service. He did not exclude any persioners. A retired ambassador was the man who had the largest pension, and he did not hesitate to say hardly anyone could be poorer than an ex-ambassador who had no resources beyond his pension. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all the insistence of which he was possessed, to give all pensions the lower rate of income-tax. The Indian Civil servant had a particularly strong case, as he contributed at least half, and often nearly the whole of the capital sum from which his pension came, which capital sum was lost to his family on his death. He read letters from gentlemen possessing such pensions, and other pensions showing the history of such cases, and how unjust it would be to treat such pensions like unearned income. He urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the matter his most earnest consideration.
  SIR F. BANBURYsupported the Amendment because he thought the proposed abatement would not meet the whole case, although it might appear to accord with the wishes of a great number of people. The income-tax produced £32,000,000, and at the rate of abatement proposed the reduction should be, not £1,250,000, but £3,250,000. The reason the Chan-
  256
  cellor of the Exchequer did not adopt the larger figure was, he supposed, that he did not think that his abatement would have much effect. Moreover, the three following Budget Resolutions more than took away the advantage which was supposed to be given. Another serious point was that under the present income-tax system no one was supposed to make a full return of all his income, but under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman persons desiring to claim the reduction would have to show not only that their income did not exceed £2,000, but what was their total income from dividends on the capital which they held. That would have a very serious effect upon City and professional men. In the case of a man whose income amounted to £2,000 altogether, £1,500 a year from his business and £500 the interest on £10,000 which he had saved, in order to get the 3d. rebate he would have to disclose not only that he was earning £1,500 a year, but also his capital, which would be a very serious matter for him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt would say that all the officials were sworn to secrecy, but there were a large number of income-tax Commissioners, and they, although very estimable people, might very well talk to their wives and families or other people. One of the Commissioners was a member of the Stock Exchange, and under this proposal all the 500 members of that body would have to disclose their capital to him, which was not a desirable state of things.
  MR. ASQUITH: They can go before Special Commissioners if they choose.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that might be so, but he believed the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would be detrimental to those engaged in the business of the country. He thought the advisors of the right hon. Gentleman were perfectly well aware of that, and that was

  257
  why they had allowed for a rebate of only £1,250,000 instead of £3,250,000. The same thing would happen in the case of the professional man. A barrister, for instance, might not get all the briefs he thought he ought to have and he would not want to disclose to the public and solicitors how few he received. He had been asked in the city to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, although he was afraid he should not succeed in getting him to alter his determination, to the question of wasting securities. It was very hard that the wasting securities should be dealt with in the way in which they were by the Income Tax Commissioners. He knew of the case of a company where the capital was £1,000,000. In order to provide for the possible working out of the field of operations in seven years over £311,000 was put aside, and £145,000 was similarly treated for depreciation of machinery and buildings, making a total of £457,000, and leaving available for dividend only £143,000. The income-tax, however, lumped all these sums together and charged income-tax on over £600,000. Not only that, they had to pay on that £457,000 for seven years, and if any of the unfortunate shareholders died their estates had to pay the death duties as well. That was really a state of things which could not be defended. It had this disadvantage that, instead of encouraging thrift in companies and individuals and leading them to set aside money to provide for depreciation, the State penalised them for doing so. The effect of the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals went in the direction of penalising thrift.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not responsible for this practice. It has been in existence for sixty-five years.
  SIR F. BANBURYunderstood that the Government were returned to remedy abuses and to redress grievances. Let
  258
  the House consider the case of a man with £1,900 a year. If he spent the £1,900 a year he would pay 9d. income-tax, whereas if he spent only £500 a year and saved the rest and in consequence obtained his income from his savings he would have to pay 1s. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was as responsible for this injustice as any other Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last sixty-five years.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSagreed with the last speaker that a man who had saved money out of income was entitled as a matter of justice and equity to pay at the lower rate both upon his earned and unearned income in the year. He thought the abatement should act equally upon the income of the earned part and upon that which was derived from capital which had been saved out of income. In Scotland, while they were eager and burning to pay this tax, they did so at the point of the bayonet. They liked to come to the collector and pay their doles at the right time, but in this regard they were driven in Scotland to pay much sooner than in England. He wished to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to do to mend matters. The House might not know but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was well aware that there was a serious difference between the system adopted for Scotland and that adopted for England. In Scotland, after the income-tax was assessed, the collection of the tax was effected by a revenue officer armed with all the powers conferred upon him by the State. He knocked at one's door at the beginning of January, and if he was not successful in collecting the tax he knocked again at the beginning of February. If the tax was not paid then, about the 15th of February came the process of law. The collection was effected by public officers, who discharged their duty without fear or favour. In England, after the tax was

  259
  assessed, collectors, who had no special qualifications for the office, were told to collect it. They might make a call and be put off, until in some cases the tax was not collected till June. Only that evening he had been told by an hon. Member that he never paid his income-tax until the middle of June, and saw no reason why he should pay it earlier. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to improve the collection in England? If the tax was collected in England half as well as in Scotland it would be collected more easily and the yield would be greater. The income-tax was a farmed tax collected by people who were paid for collecting it. The Scottish method was a far better one and compelled his countrymen who did not care to part with their money to pay up in February. A platonic explanation of agreement with what he said was not enough. A little more was required from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than the profession of a desire or even a promise to collect this money better. This was no new complaint, but it was put into a more concrete form because associations were being formed in Scotland having for their object the better collection of the tax. Now that everyone was to be swept into the net it would fall with much greater weight than ever before upon the shoulders of the people. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to catch those who had possibly escaped before he would have to give some promise that the collection of the tax in England should pass into the hands of gentlemen who would discharge their duty with regularity. Moreover, while the financial year ended on the 5th of April and the income up to the end of that year was the income upon which the income-tax was collected, the payment of that tax was due on the 1st of January. Men were called upon, in fact, to pay the tax before it was due. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would also look into the incidence of the tax. There
  260
  were a great many people who were going to be hard hit by it, therefore he desired that the tax should be collected under the best conditions. It would be no doubt a serious thing for the country to lose a quarter of the year's income, but they in Scotland complained that they were compelled to pay their income-tax in the middle of February which was too soon. He would not be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman had greater trouble in the future than he had had in the past to collect the tax in Scotland. He himself felt that he would be quite justified in telling his friends in Scotland not to pay until the system of collection was altered in England. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the measures necessary to remedy the injustice done to Scotland in this matter.
  *SIR J. JARDINEsaid he did not intend to digress, but would keep strictly to the point of the shilling income-tax. So far as he could ascertain there was no expectation among the commercial or financial classes that the income-tax would be further reduced until more of the debt caused by the Boer War had been paid off. If they came to the capitalist classes—those who invested in Consols or holders of good securities that went up and down with Consols—there was general satisfaction in their minds at the retention of the shilling limit, because they knew it was the only way of stopping the depreciation of their capitalised securities. Amongst the thousands of income-tax payers a vast number would benefit by the reductions already proposed. The great majority of income-tax payers were most eager for the war when it began, and again at the General Election of 1900, they showed by their votes that they wished to spend more on it. With £138,000,000 sterling of War Debt still to pay, they were fully aware as honest men that they must keep on paying the shilling income-tax until the national credit was improved.
  SIR THOMAS LOWEsaid he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously to consider whether 1s. was not too high a figure for the income-tax in time of peace. Personally he thought 1s. was far too high a figure, and he would vote for any reduction which was proposed. This tax ought to be looked upon in regard to its effect upon commerce and the general prosperity of the country. However much one might hear of the large volume of exports and imports, it was a fact that the trade of the country was far from good at the present time. Many hon. Members would agree that they were not receiving so large an income as they were two or three years ago. The only people who were receiving as much as they did in former years were the members of the Government who drew large salaries which were not subject to any fluctuation. If the income-tax was not reduced it would tend to check enterprise, cripple industry, and destroy confidence. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that it would extend trade and improve the prosperity of the country in other directions if he accepted the Amendment, and the difference would be more than made up from other sources of revenue. It was far more just and also expedient not to apply too much direct taxation. The income-tax was too great a temptation to Chancellors of the Exchequer, because it was easy to collect and obviated the necessity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer exercising his ingenuity in other directions. As a means of conducing to the prosperity of the country it would be wiser and sounder finance to look out for other sources of taxation, and he hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman produced his Budget next year he would not only consider the income-tax from the point of view of revenue, but also
  from the point of view of the effect it would have upon the general trade and prosperity of the country.
  MR. MYERasked what was going to be done in regard to incomes from profit sharing in various companies. There were a good many men who were in receipt of small salaries and the rest of their income was from shares in various companies. He thought that such men should have the advantage of the reduction of 3d, in the £. If that was not done the companies would probably alter their arrangements and pay their men in the form of increased salaries instead of partly in the form of dividends. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision not to allow a three years' average to be taken. The proposal to pay the income-tax for the present year came as a double hardship to many firms whose profits had been very bad. He knew that the whole question was very much involved and complicated, but he thought such people as he had mentioned should have some consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ASQUITHreminded the House of the arrangement made not to continue the debate for more than an hour and a half, and suggested that a decision should now be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Opposition did not desire to discuss this Resolution further, and as regarded the remaining Resolutions he hoped they would be passed rapidly. But by passing those Resolutions sub silentio it must not be taken that the Opposition accepted them; they retained full liberty to discuss the questions involved at a later stage.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 323; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 163.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, George William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Armitage, R.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Joyce, Michael

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

  Kekewieh, Sir George

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Dillon, John

  Kelley, George D.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duckworth, James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Duffy, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Barker, John

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lambert, George

  Barlow, JohnEmmott (Somerset

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Erskine, David C.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Levy, Maurice

  Beale, W. P.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Billson, Alfred

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Findlay, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Black, Arthur W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Blake, Edward

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brace, William

  Ginnell, L.

  Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Branch, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Crae, George

  Brigg, John

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Bright, J. A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Killop, W.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Grant, Corrie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Meagher, Michael

  Burke E. Haviland

  Hall, Frederick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Halpin, J.

  Menzies, Walter

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harrington, Timothy

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harwood, George

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cameron, Robert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Hazleton, Richard

  Murnaghan, George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Murphy, John

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murray, James

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Napier, T. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Grady, J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Malley, William

  Crombie, John William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Mara, James

  Crooks, William

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Shee, James John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Phillipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)'

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  264

  265

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Verney, F. W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Seddon, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Shackleton, David James

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Radford, G. H.

  Sheehy, David

  Waring, Walter

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Reddy, M.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Watt, Henry A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Snowden, P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rendall, Atherstan

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'm'pt'n

  Steadman, W. C.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Young, Samuel

  Runciman, Walter

  Tillett, Louis John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Russell, T. W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Toulmin, George

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Gordon, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Haddock, George R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hills, J. W.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Campbell, Rt, Hon. J. H. M.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cave, George

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clark, Geo. Smith (Belfast, N.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Younger, George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cross, Alexander

  Moore, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Samuel Roberts and Mr. Fell.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Ake s

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Resolution agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [24TH APRIL] REPORT.

  Order read, for Consideration of Second and Subsequent Resolutions.
  Resolutions considered.
  Second Resolution.

  Where the Principal Value of the Estate

  Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

  In-tead of

  Exceeds—

  £

  £

  150,000

  and does not exceed

  250,000

  Seven pounds

  Six pounds ten shillings

  250,000

  ”

  ”

  500,000

  Eight pounds

  Seven pounds

  500,000

  ”

  ”

  750,000

  Nine pounds

  Seven pounds ten shillings

  750,000

  ”

  ”

  1,000,000

  Ten pounds

  Seven pounds ten shillings

  1,000,000

  ”

  ”

  1,500,000

  Ten pounds on one million and eleven pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  1,500,000

  ”

  ”

  2,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and twelve pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  2,000,000

  ”

  ”

  2,500,000

  Ten pounds on one million and thirteen pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  2,500,000

  ”

  ”

  3,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and fourteen pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  3,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and fifteen pounds on the remainder.

  Eight pounds

  Read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that after the arrangement; which had been arrived at he hoped the discussion would not be continued. They would be allowed to debate this question upon a later occasion.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  2. "That in the case of persons dying on or after the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, the rates of Estate duty under section seventeen of The Finance Act, 1894, be amended so that—
  MR. HAROLD COXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could see his way to graduate more finely, and instead of jumping from 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. to go from 7 per cent. to 7· 1 per cent., 7· 2 per cent., and so on. In that way he would be able to get more money.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It would be more trouble.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 329; Noes, 84. (Division List No. 164.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cox, Harold

  Hobhonse, Charles E. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hodge, John

  Alden, Percy

  Crean, Eugene

  Hogan, Michael

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Armitage, R.

  Crombic, John William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Crooks, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. HerbertHenry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horniman, Emslic John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barker, John

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Barlow, Jn. Emmott (Somerset)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dillon, John

  Jenkins, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kelley, George D.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Elibank, Master of

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Billson, Alfred

  Erskine, David C.

  Killbride, Denis

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Blake, Edward

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

  Brace, William

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamont, Norman

  Branch, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal W.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Ferens, T. R.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Brigg, John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bright, J. A.

  Field, William

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Levy, Maurice

  Brodie, H. C.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Ginnell, L.

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glover, Thomas

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maclean, Donald

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Grant, Corrie

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Callum, John M.

  Cameron, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Crae, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Causton, Rt Hn. Richard Knight

  Halpin, J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Cawley, (Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

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

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Harwood, George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Clynes, J. R,

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hazleton, Richard

  Menzies, Walter

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Mond, A.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Camarthen)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Morrell, Philip

  Richardson, A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Murray, James

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Myer, Horatio

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradford

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Nicholls, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Toulmin, George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Robinson, S.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nolan, Joseph

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Verney, F. W.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Vivian, Henry

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Walsh, Stephen

  Nuttall, Harry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rowlands, J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Waring, Walter

  O'Grady, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Malley, William

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  O'Mara, James

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Shee, James John

  Seddon, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Shackleton, David James

  White, J. D. (Dubartonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sheehy, David

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wiles, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Rea, Russell(Gloucester)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, Samuel

  Reddy, M.

  Straus, B. S. (Mie End)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Rendall, Athlestan

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  NOES.

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Rt. Hn A. S. (City Lond.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Moore, William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Forster, Henry William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gordon, J.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Haddock, George R.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Cave, George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hills, J. W.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cecil Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Starkey, John R.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  272

  273

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hicks Beach and Mr

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Watson Rutherford.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Younger, George

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Third Resolution—

  INCOME-TAX (INCLUSION OF ALL OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS IN SCHEDULE E).
  3. "That the Income-tax charged on offices or employments of profit, whether public or not, be charged under Schedule E in The Income-Tax Act, 1853."
  Disagreed to.
  Resolutions—

  INCOME-TAX (LIMITATION ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS OR REPAYMENTS FOR WEAR AND TEAR).
  4. "That no deduction or repayment be allowed in any year in respect of the diminished value, by reason of wear and tear, of any machinery or plant which, when added to the deductions or repayments allowed on that account in previous years, will make the aggregate amount of the deductions or repayments exceed the actual cost of the machinery or plant."
  INCOME-TAX (ABOLITION OF REPAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ON AVERAGE INCOME).
  5. "That any abatement, relief, or repayment of Income-tax under section one hundred and thirty-three of The Income-Tax Act, 1842, as amended by section six of The Revenue Act, 1865, shall cease."

  INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT ON TRADES, ETC., RECENTLY COMMENCED).
  6. "That Income-tax charged under Schedule D in The Income-Tax Act, 1853, on professions, trades, or vocations shall, in the case of professions, trades, or vocations which have been set up or commenced within the three years on which the average income is to be computed under The Income-Tax Acts or within the year of assessment, be charged with reference to the actual profits or gains arising in the year of assessment."
  Agreed to.
  Ordered, "That it he an Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolutions reported from
  the Committee of Ways and Means on the 1st day of this instant May, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the Resolutions agreed to by the House this day."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  LOCAL TAXATION GRANTS [CONSOLIDATED FUND].
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient that the following grants to Local Taxation Accounts, namely—(1) The Estate Duty grants paid under section nineteen of The Finance Act, 1894; and (2) The Agricultural Rates grant paid under section two of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896; and (3) The Scottish Agricultural Rates grant paid under section three of The Agricultural Rates, Congested Districts, and Burgh Land Tax Relief (Scotland) Act, 1896, instead of being paid out of the revenues out of which they are payable under the present law, be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but in the case of the grants which are payable during the continuance of any temporary Act, only so long as that Act is continued, and that where under the present law the proceeds of any duties are paid to any local taxation account, a sum equal to the proceeds of those duties at their present rates be paid to that account out of the Consolidated Fund, and the actual proceeds of the duties be paid into the Exchequer."
  *MR. HICKS BEACHsaid this was a very important Resolution and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would forgive him if he asked information on one or two points arising on it. He observed that it only alluded to a portion of the Imperial taxes paid into the Local Taxation Account. The licences for the retailing of beer and spirits, the ordinary Excise licences, gun licences, dog licences, licences for armorial bearings, and various things of that kind were all paid into the Local Taxation Account, but did not appear to come under this Resolution. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the

  275
  change which he proposed was really a book-keeping change, and that it would not affect the local authorities at all. The right hon. Gentleman led the House to understand that the local authorities would benefit from any normal increase in the yield of these taxes. He did not quite understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able correctly to apportion these amounts to the various counties and at the same time save the great amount of book-keeping which he led the House to believe would be saved through the proposed change. An important point to remember in dealing with Local Taxation Grants was that, while these contributions from the Imperial Exchequer had been increasing pretty regularly, at the same time the items of expenditure by the local authorities, to meet which these grants were given by the Imperial Exchequer, had been increasing very much more rapidly; and the result was that the balance of the charges which the Exchequer grants did not meet had fallen on the ratepayers. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to alter the arrangement in order to get into his net the Excise licences and among others the licences on motor cars; but apparently the right hon. Gentleman did not wish any benefit that might accrue from the issue of motor car licences to go to the local authorities. He submitted that that was a very important decision. In the case of local authorities the greater portion of their outlay apart from education had been on the upkeep of roads, which ought to be a national charge; and if the right hon. Gentleman was going to raise any considerable increase of revenue from licences on motor cars he ought to give the increase to the local authorities. They were the people who had to find the money to keep up the roads, and he submitted that the proceeds realised in that way ought to go to them and not to the Imperial Exchequer. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give the House more information in regard to these changes, because he was afraid they might have serious consequences.
  MR. HARMOOP-BANNERsaid he would offer no apology for bringing
  276
  before the House a matter of great importance to municipal and borough authorities. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer in referring to Imperial and local taxation stated that the local authorities would share in any natural growth—that was, they would receive exactly the same sum in any year as they received now—and then occurred the words "natural growth or natural diminution." He submitted to the House that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant a very heavy addition to the rates payable to the municipal authorities. He had taken very good opinion on this matter from several municipal treasurers, and he had had the opportunity of looking at the accounts of some municipal corporations. He found that in their opinion it would mean an additional 1d. in the £ in borough or city councils.
  MR. ASQUITHindicated dissent.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but he would endeavour to establish that proposition. If there would be another opportunity of bringing this subject up on the Finance Bill, he had no wish to put the House to any inconvenience in stating the case now.
  MR. ASQUITH: There will be other opportunities.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that he was to have a meeting to-morrow with 259 representatives of municipal authorities, and this question would come up. He would be bound to tell them that this proposal was going to impose a large additional burden on their rates, and he would have liked to have had an opportunity of discussing it. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he felt bound to shorten his remarks. This was a most inequitable proposition, and it was going to take from boroughs and counties a very large amount of their funds. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to postpone the proposed change.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Gentleman might safely tell his 259 friends

  277
  that this would not impose a penny additional on any one of them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better wait and see the Bill before he asserted the contrary. There would be a clause dealing with the matter inserted in the Bill. He had given an undertaking in his Budget speech, and if the Bill did not carry it out it could be amended. Not one halfpenny would be thrown on any of the local authorities. Did that satisfy the hon. Gentleman?
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that what the right hon. Gentleman told them in his Budget speech was that they were to have the normal growth. But if there was a diminution, a less sum would be received and the local authorities would have to suffer.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that statement showed to him one of the advantages which the hon. Gentleman would have by waiting to see the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman found in the Bill any such clause, the clause would be amended to make it clear. As to what he himself had said about motor cars, he thought hon. Members had better wait until he brought in the precise proposals. He had never said that the taxation from motor cars would go to the Imperial Exchequer without any consideration of the local authorities. What he said was that the present system was absolutely inequitable. Under the present system the persons who got the benefit were the local authority in whose jurisdiction the license was taken out. That was the absurdity in the present position of things which he pointed out.
  Ordered, That it be a further Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 1st day of this instant May, and thon agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  "To grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, to alter other
  278
  Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said that this Bill was to enable the Postmaster-General to acquire land compulsorily in London, Chester, Bournemouth, Eastbourne, and Southgate for the public service. They had already powers of compulsory acquisition, but where there was a dispute as to the compensation to be paid, as in the case of Bournemouth, because of a technical point in a defective title, additional compulsory powers were necessary in order to avoid difficulties as between vendor and purchaser and the expense that might otherwise be incurred. He proposed, as soon as the Bill was given a Second Reading, to move its reference to a Select Committee, before which all parties interested would have an opportunity of appearing and discussing any question they desired to raise, or of making any suggestion that they might feel disposed to make. Any proposal they made would receive due consideration. The House would have an opportunity of discussing the Bill fully after it had come downstairs from the Select Committee, He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he could not understand why, if a voluntary agreement had been arrived at, compulsion should come in. He was sorry that Clause 1 was so incomprehensible. Then there was a serious difficulty in regard to Clause 9. He took that clause to mean that when the Postmaster-General saw a site of which he desired to take a part for a post office, he might do so without paying compensation for depreciation on account of severance. That seemed to him unfair, and he dared

  279
  say that the drafting of the clause was so defective as to increase the charges of the legal profession.
  LORD R. CECILconsidered that some explanation was required as to the meaning of Clauses 6 and 9. He understood that under the Bill in cases where there was an agreement for the purchase of sites compulsory powers were given to extinguish the rights of owners of property who were under some disability. Clauses 6 and 9 were at any rate unusual, and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should issue a short memorandum showing the effect of this proposed legislation on previous legislation.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought that no Government Department ought to deal with the land of private individuals in the way proposed by this Bill. If the Bill were examined it would be found that a special exception was made in the favour of the Government so that the Postmaster-General could take a portion of a man's property compulsorily and damage the balance, without paying compensation for that damage. Other people would be required to take the whole, but it was in the power of the Postmaster-General arbitrarily to decide that he would only take a particular piece. The point he took was that the Government ought not to ask for powers of that character.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was nothing new in this Bill as compared with previous statutes. It had been drawn precisely in the form of former Bills of the same character. The hon. Member had misinterpreted the clause, which only said that when the Postmaster-General asserted that in his opinion severance of the piece of land required would not damage the rest he should be able to acquire it. If there was any dispute as to whether damage would be sustained by the severance the question would have to go before an arbitrator and a jury, and if the view of the Postmaster-General was not correct the Government would have to pay damages for the property which was injured. The question would be one for negotiation, and the Select Committee
  280
  would be able to take measures to guard against any possible injustice. Anyone who had a grievance would be able to appear before the Committee and his case would be considered. After the Bill came back from the Committee they would be able to discuss these points with a view to removing any possible injustice.
  MR. RAWLINSONcalled attention to the fact that Clause 6 gave a power to the Post Office to stop up not only public rights of way but private rights of way. That provision being put in this year might lead to difficulty in future. Everybody knew that it was very difficult to look up the provisions of an Act of Parliament after two or three years, and Acts rotating to Public Departments were not accessible as general public statutes were. Therefore, when a clause of this sort was slipped in, after two or three or four years people said it was a precedent. This Bill, therefore, if passed in its present form might seriously injure and curtail the rights of the public.
  Ordered, "That all Petitions against the Bill presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill."
  Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
  Ordered, "That Three be the Quorum."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

  BUTTER AND MARGARINE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid he did not wish in any way to obstruct

  281
  the passage of this Bill, as he thought in many ways it was an excellent one. It was desirable, however, that butter substitutes should be labelled with some name which did not include the word "butter." That was the desire of the Dairy Farmers' Association, and he was asked to urge upon the Board of Agriculture that they should introduce provisions in the Bill which would ensure for the protection of agriculturists that butter substitutes containing 24 per cent. of moisture should be so described that the word "butter" was not used. That would prevent frauds upon agriculturists and also upon the consumer, who might be led to think he was consuming butter when the substance he was eating contained nothing of the kind.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that the Lincolnshire Farmers' Union also strongly objected to the 24 per cent. of water allowed in butter substitutes. People who bought products called butter substitutes no doubt often thought they got butter. If it was possible for the Board of Agriculture to approve of a distinctive name to be given to these butter substitutes it would be a good thing. It seemed to him that if butter substitutes containing 24 per cent. of moisture were sold under such names as "milk-blended butter" it was quite possible that unwary purchasers might think they were getting an especially good article instead of what they were in fact purchasing. Therefore in the interests alike of farmers, butter makers, and consumers there should be some greater distinction made than existed at present. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give full consideration to the wishes of the farmers.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the feeling of the Scottish farmers was exactly similar to that already expressed by the noble Lord. They considered the provision permitting the sale of butter substitutes containing 24 per cent. of moisture would not only be a danger to the public but permit unfair competition with the farmer. Under one clause of the Bill butter and margarine were both condemned if they contained more than 16 per cent. of moisture, but when it came to the so-called butter substitutes the Bill contemplated allowing 24 per
  282
  cent. of moisture There were many other points to which he might refer, but his purpose was served by making the House aware of the face that the farmers of Scotland felt a grievance on the matter.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Order for Second Reading read
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. RAWLINSONopposed the Bill, which, he said, was divided into three parts. It gave leave to every criminal to appeal on any point of law which arose at the trial. He had no particular objection to that provision, for it had been recommended by a Royal Commission. But the present differed from any previous measures in that it allowed an appeal on any question of fact, and, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, it allowed an appeal from a sentence. When the hon. and learned Attorney-General introduced the Bill under the ten-minutes rule he dealt with the wide generality, which must always be attractive to the public, that every person convicted should have a right to state his case before a higher Court. It was only when they came to the particular facts of the case that they found these generalities broke down. One of the great objections to the measure was its expense. The taking of shorthand notes at every criminal trial at assizes or quarter sessions would be paid for by the country. If a person were convicted at quarter sessions he could apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal, and he would be entitled to come, say, from the north of England to London at the expense of the taxpayers. In his opinion, if such an unlimited right to apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal on every question of fact were allowed, the machinery of the Bill must inevitably break down, for the expense and the labour were too great for any

  283
  tribunal effectively to carry through. The ground for leave to appeal in regard to a particular sentence was safeguarded to this extent, that any person could appeal for leave to appeal against any sentence, however small or trivial, but that if he got leave the Court of Criminal Appeal could either increase or reduce the sentence. That was relied upon as a deterrent in certain cases against these appeals. His real reason for opposing the Bill, however, was the respect in which the vital part of the Bill differed from the recommendations of any Committee that had ever sat to consider the subject. In regard to appeals on questions of fact, it left to the Court of Criminal Appeal the unrestricted right of giving leave to appeal. His main objection to this Bill was that it was absolutely unworkable. The expense, which had apparently never been estimated, would be exceedingly great, and it would be unworkable in other ways which he proposed to indicate. A person having been convicted and sentenced would apply for leave to appeal at once. For that purpose he would be entitled to come to London and put his case before the Court of Criminal Appeal. He would naturally have no counsel or solicitor, and the Court of Criminal Appeal could then assign him counsel and solicitor to fight his case for him at the expense of the country. The prisoner, therefore, would be entitled to come to London, it might be from the North of England, to appeal to this Court consisting of three, five, or seven Judges, which Court probably would have to sit all the year round to hear applications of this character. He would present the shorthand notes of the Court below, and when once that had been done the Public Prosecutor had to appear unless in the case of a private prosecution the private prosecutor was sufficiently public spirited to come forward. Let the House consider what a tremendous expense would be incurred. If they made the proceeding difficult, if everybody was not allowed to take advantage of it, or restrictions were put upon it, then it would probably operate against the newly convicted who would not know the ropes—if he might use that phrase—like old offenders. When they got before the Court of Criminal Appeal, liberty to appeal would be given or it would not. If leave was given,
  284
  great expense would be incurred for no particular reason. It was upon that branch of the procedure that he ventured to prophesy a breakdown, in the first instance, of the machinery. Assuming that liberty to appeal was given, and the Court re-tried the case, it would re-try it not upon evidence, unless it was specially asked for, and not before a jury, but by three Judges sitting in London.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): Like all appeals.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid it was not like all appeals. There was no other appeal like this. On the contrary, if they asked for a new trial, and it was granted, the case was re-tried before another jury. That was just what did not happen under this Bill. A case would not go to a fresh jury, but it would be re-tried before three Judges, who, unless they chose to ask for witnesses, would never hear witnesses and there would be no jury to try the man at all. It was not, therefore, like other appeals; it was absolutely and intrinsically an innovation. At present, in any case tried by a jury, if the Court of Appeal found that they had come to a wrong conclusion upon a question of fact, that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, they sent the case back to be re-tried by another jury. But the appeal now proposed was an innovation, because the re-trial would take place without witnesses, possibly without evidence, but only on such materials as were afforded by the notes of the Judge or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, the shorthand writer's notes, and the statements of counsel who appeared before the three Judges. Was that a satisfactory mode of trial? Not only that, they apparently empowered the Court of Criminal Appeal to find any sort of verdict they chose. If it was a case of murder and it came from the Court below on the question whether or not the man charged committed the crime, the Court could find the man was guilty, or not guilty, or they could find him guilty of manslaughter, or arrive at some other of the verdicts which were set out in the Bill. Further than that, the Court could literally

  285
  go to the extent of taking a defence which had never been set up by the prisoner. There was the question of insanity which had been brought before them in a recent case in America. They would really be following in the steps of the American case. A man was tried for murder and the jury convicted. The defence in the Court below was on the facts only, and in the Court of Criminal Appeal the defence on the facts was still persisted in; but under the Bill the Court could find that the man was guilty of the act, but could also find that he was insane at the time he committed it. That was a bad innovation and contrary to our criminal law at the present time. Personally, he thought it was undesirable to grant an appeal on a question of fact, but whether or not they thought it desirable, his reason for opposing the Bill was that he considered it absolutely unworkable. The Bill did not solve the problem, which he ventured to think was unsolvable. It was got up without any regard to expense. There was the expense of the transcript of the shorthand writer's notes, the expense of the Public Prosecutor appearing in every case of an application for leave to appeal, and there was the expense of providing counsel for a poor prisoner. All that had to be done in the Court of Criminal Appeal. But there was another form of expense which was not indicated in the Bill and which had not been referred to by the Attorney-General, and that was the expense of the judicial tribunal which they would have to keep up to keep pace with the work thrown upon it. Three King's Bench Judges were to be told off for the work, and they would be kept constantly employed. In the Court of Appeal and in the King's Bench Division they were blocked by arrears, and the number of Judges was not sufficient to do the work. The Attorney-General suggested that they were going to have more Judges.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I could not put it in this Bill.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid there was no sort of pledge that Judges were to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill. It could be easily put in the Bill that
  286
  three Judges should be appointed to do this work. It was not in the Bill because they could not afford it at the present time. Already they were pressing for more Judges for the Court of Appeal and the King's Bench Division, and the need was a very urgent and real one. But they were met at every turn by the non possumus of the Treasury that they could not for the moment relieve the gigantic pressure on the Court of Appeal and in the King's Bench Division. If they could not do that, how could they provide the three Judges required under this Bill? He moved the rejection of the Bill because it was unworkable. If it had been confined to clauses based on the recommendation of the Beck Committee, as to appeals on points of law, it would have been a different Bill, and he would have been in favour of it, But the innovation of this measure was the liberty to ask leave to appeal on questions of fact, and the granting of leave to appeal on questions of fact. He moved, "That the Bill be read this day six months."
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERin seconding, said that although there were features in the Bill which he supported, he felt himself constrained, after giving the matter as much consideration as he could, to support the Motion of his hon. friend. It was not as though they were considering whether or not they should devise machinery for checking that great calamity, the conviction of an innocent man, because they had such machinery in existence already. With regard to sentences of undue severity and wrongful conviction, they had at the present time in the Home Office machinery which revised both sentences and convictions. The practical question for them to consider was not whether they should devise machinery for revising sentences and convictions, but whether the machinery provided by this Bill was not more costly and less efficient than the machinery they had already got for that purpose. He did not contend that the present machinery was in any way perfect, but he held that the machinery proposed under the Bill would be more costly, more cumbrous, and more dilatory, as well as less practically effective. With regard to the appeal against sentence he desired to say that

  287
  the machinery proposed to be set up was unnecessarily cumbrous, and he thought the Court should be given power to dispose finally of the matter and revise or alter the sentence upon the original application for leave to appeal against the sentence and then one application might take the place of three. The Bill proposed to set up a Court of Appeal from the verdict of a jury, with, so far as he could gather, very limited powers. Sub-section 1 of Section 4 which limited the powers of the new Court of Appeal seemed to him to be the most important. He was not quite sure that he understood Section 4. Under that clause the new Court of Appeal was to be at liberty to set aside the verdict of the jury convicting a man in any case where on a civil appeal the verdict of the jury could be set aside. It then went on to say that it might set aside the judgment on very much wider grounds. He did not clearly understand what the second provision added to the powers of the Court. What was meant was that wherever a verdict could be set aside in a Civil Court it might be set aside in a Criminal Court. If that was what the section meant then this Bill gave little or nothing to the convicted man who thought his conviction was unjust. What were the grounds on which a verdict could be set aside on a civil appeal? They were that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, that was, that there had been a perverse unreasonable verdict. If they were going to wait in a criminal case until the jury had found a verdict of conviction which was perverse they would never have such a case. Juries in criminal cases, acting in the teeth of the evidence, might acquit, but they never convicted in the teeth of the evidence. There would be no such cases as that brought before the Court of Appeal. With regard to appeals on grounds of mistake, the discovery of fresh evidence and such matters, there would be few, if any, applications which would comply with the rule laid down in the Bill that they must bring forward grounds which would induce a Civil Court of Appeal to set it aside. It would not be possible in a Court of Criminal Appeal to rely upon those rules enforced by public opinion in a Civil Court of Appeal. In a Civil Court of Appeal
  288
  public opinion supported the Court in being satisfied with something less than abstract justice in the Court below, but the moment they went into a Court of Criminal Appeal, and suggested to any Court that there was such a thing as a man in prison undergoing punishment and wrongfully convicted, the whole complexion of the thing would be altered in a moment, and no Court could attempt, or would be supported by public opinion in attempting, to enforce the rigid rules which limited Civil Courts. Counsel would appear and say "My client was undefended in the Court below, he is a poor man and has never been in a Court of Justice before, and he did not understand it was open to him to give evidence. He thought his wife was not an admissible witness, and other witnesses might have been called. The Court has not got to the bottom of the matter, and there is reason to fear that the conviction was unjust, and I ask for leave to appeal." That was the kind of application that would be made and whatever the House might say about the rules which governed a Civil Appeal, no Court of Criminal Appeal would reject an application of that kind if they saw even the slightest grounds to fear that an injustice might have been committed. Therefore, what would happen in practice would be that the Court of Appeal would be uneasy in view of suggestions of that kind and would proceed to deal with the matter. In what way were they to deal with this question under the Bill? He confessed that it was a little difficult to understand what they were to do. The Bill was very peremptory and provided that if they set aside the verdict of the jury they must enter a verdict of acquittal. Was it to be supposed that the Court of Appeal, merely because their confidence in the conviction had been shaken, merely because they had had some reason, not to think the man innocent but to doubt whether he was fully proved guilty, would proceed to set aside there and then the verdict of the jury and set that man free? He ventured to say that no Court would do that. There was only one way in which the Court of Criminal Appeal could act if it was to be a practical reality. It had to be satisfied prirna facie that there was some reasonable cause to fear that there had been a miscarriage, and then, having arrived at the conclusion, the

  289
  matter must be reheard and retried de novo upon its merits either in the Court of Appeal or in the Court from which it came. In every case where it gave leave to appeal it would have to exercise those powers which the Bill gave it of summoning witnesses and hearing the matter de novo. No one acquainted with these matters would suggest that the Court of Appeal would set aside the verdict of a jury on the mere investigation of documents, petitions, or shorthand notes or reports. When a case had been tried with great pains by the Judge of Assize and a jury, and after careful examination and cross-examination they had found the man guilty, was any Court of Appeal to set aside the verdict and acquit the man on the strength of a private examination of a document? Would public opinion be satisfied with that? It should not be overlooked that public opinion was not always on the side of the prisoner, and there was a public opinion which desired that justice should be done and crime properly punished. If a case, after being tried at great length, was again tried on appeal, and after examining certain documents and shorthand notes the man was released, that was not a result which would satisfy public opinion. In practice the Bill meant the continuous retrial in London of a large amount of ordinary criminal business. That was a very serious prospect and a very serious undertaking. The cost and the inconvenience involved was something which the Government and the House ought seriously to consider. How many applications were there likely to be for leave to appeal? There were some 10,000 men convicted on indictment every year in this country. How many of those were likely to ask for leave to appeal against the justice of their sentence? He believed they would almost all do so, and why should they not, because they would have every assistance under this Bill? They would have counsel. This would all tend to delay their sentence and they might possibly gain something, but they could not possibly lose anything. His belief was that the vast majority of prisoners convicted would ask for leave to appeal against their sentence. When a man was convicted under this Bill he was to be treated for the first ten days as a person under detention. His
  290
  friends and solicitor would have access to him, and it would be very strange indeed if the solicitor was not able to find some very specious ground upon which an application could be based for leave to appeal. There would be a great number of applications, they would have to be made to the full Court, and they would be lengthy matters, because they would involve the examination of the shorthand notes in every case. There were some 200 working days in the year, and if half the prisoners convicted applied, and the Court was able to deal with as many as twenty-five cases every day—which he did not suppose they would—half of the 200 working days of the year would be so occupied. That calculation left out of account the main work of this Court in rehearing cases. They would be rehearing cases with witnesses. He did not think hon. Members realised the length of time that even an ordinary case like that of a man charged with stealing throe ducks would take. Such cases in the ordinary Courts took a long time and before three Judges they would take much longer. It would be said that "If you had heard the evidence you would have come to a different conclusion." That was why a Court of Appeal did not set itself up against the verdict of a jury. It merely sent down the case to be tried by another jury. That was where this Court of Appeal differed essentially from any other Court of Appeal in the country. A Court of Civil Appeal found error only. It had only to be satisfied whether a Court had gone wrong, and it was not concerned with what was the right conclusion of the matter. But this Court of Appeal would be called upon to do this. He asked the House to imagine the expense and inconvenience of the proposed Court. It would have to send for witnesses from all parts of the country under the powers given by this Bill, it would have to question them and try to get at the bottom of the case and the real truth of the matter. There were, he thought, considerations graver oven than those of expense and inconvenience to many people. With 10,000 convictions in a year the number of persons who had the misfortune to be summoned as witnesses was very large indeed. They were already put to great expense and inconvenience in going to Potty Sessions

  291
  and Assizes—going first before the Grand Jury and then before the Petty Jury—and it would be a hardship if they had to come to London and go through the matter again in a Court of Appeal. But there were worse mischiefs which might arise. He had spent the best part of his life in the presence of juries, and no small part of it in the presence of criminal juries. He thought there were few things finer in this country than the demeanour of a jury in any serious criminal case. That was, he believed, mainly because they felt that the life or the liberty of a follow creature was put into their hands to dispose of finally. If this Bill passed what would be the effect upon jurymen? What happened now? He instanced the ordinary doubtful case. The jury had been charged that if the matter was one merely of grave suspicion, they must acquit; and that if it amounted to practical certainty they must convict. They retired, and some of them would be for conviction, while others would think that the case did not go beyond grave suspicion. In nine cases out of ten prudence and caution would prevail, and the party for acquittal would triumph. How would juries deal with a case like that if this Bill were enforced? The Bill gave an appeal to one side. The appeal in civil cases was upon both sides. It would be said that if the jury wrongfully convicted the prisoner could appeal. He felt, as had been said by great lawyers in another place, that to set up a permanent Court of Appeal and invite the reconsideration of the verdicts of juries in criminal cases, would be to destroy finally that deep feeling of conscientiousness which was the great glory of our Criminal Courts, and the great safeguard of persons who were accused. He had heard a great Judge say that the common expression "the benefit of the doubt" was an odious phrase. In a sense it was odious, but it was a convenient phrase. If there was set up a Court of Criminal Appeal it was exactly the "benefit of the doubt" which the accused would in practice lose. If the House was going to pass the Bill, he urged the Government to consider carefully whether they ought not to give to the Court of Criminal Appeal the option, at their discretion, to order a re-hearing or re-trial, or whatever the proper expression might be. The case would then be sent down to the Assizes of the county
  292
  in which it occurred. He would not suggest the sending of it down again to Quarter Sessions. Considering the enormous expense to witnesses, he thought there would be every ground for sending the matter down to be retried in the country. That would mean an immense saving to the Court of Appeal, and no appreciable addition to the work of the Assizes. On the whole he viewed with alarm this proposal to set up a Court of Criminal Appeal. How many cases would there be in which this costly machine would operate to sift out cases of admitted injustice? No one doubted that in the Courts, not being infallible, the occasional calamity did occur of unjust conviction. This Court of Appeal would work at great expense and inconvenience to discover in the course of the year very few cases in which men had been unjustly convicted. The Home Office in doing this work now investigated these matters, and he had never heard any experienced man suggest that the Department did not do its work in the most admirable fashion. The Home Office was not restricted in its methods as the Court of Appeal would be. It was not limited by rules of evidence, and he thought it was a fact that in the majority of the very few cases in which the Home Office did trace out a miscarriage of justice it did so, not on any material placed before it by the prisoner or his friends, but on independent inquiry conducted on its own lines. He thought there were cases in which the Home Office had found that there had been miscarriage of justice where a Court of Appeal would not have interfered with the conviction. To substitute this most costly machinery for the present system would deprive our Criminal Courts of their principal glory in the deep sense of care, caution, and responsibility which was pervading the atmosphere of every Criminal Court in the country at the present time. He begged to second.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not rise to support the Amendment or to

  293
  discuss the merits of the Bill. Nobody who had listened to his hon. and learned friend could have a doubt as to the enormous importance of the issue raised, and he rose to put before the Government the inconvenience of attempting at such a time a discussion of a Bill proposing such a great change in the criminal jurisprudence of the country. He had no charge to make against the Government of breach of faith; he did not even suggest that they had gone contrary to Parliamentary traditions; but the fact remained that some of those most capable of taking part in the discussion were absent because of a natural miscalculation. The Bill had come on unexpectedly, and the fact that there had been a miscalculation was evident from the fact that the Attorney-General was not in his place when the order was called. He did not think the Government would gain anything in economy of time by pressing on a discussion which would have to be interrupted at a quarter-past eight o'clock. Let the Government look at the benches behind them and note the absence of legal talent so often to be seen there. The Bill for the first time would introduce into criminal jurisprudence the power of Judges, in the absence of a jury, to decide on questions of criminality. It would be an entire change in what had hitherto been essential, and he did not think the Bill should be taken in an hour and a half accidentally and unexpectedly available through the drying up of the flow of eloquence upon the Butter Bill. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid herecognised the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and had no objection to his Motion. But, having regard to the considerable amount of business before the House, he hoped when the Bill came; on again the debate would not be prolonged.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would exercise any influence he possessed to prevent any discussion of the Bill being used to obstruct other business.
  MR. S. T. EVANSsaid that this Bill was of a very
  294
  important character, and he hoped that opportunity would be given to discuss it very fully. Its subject matter had been in the mind of law reformers for more than a generation, and a similar Bill was passed by the House of Lords last year. It had been said that when they came to discuss the details of the Bill, legal practitioners would have to say a good deal about them. But what about legal performers? Lord Eldon, who was a great lawyer, approved of capital punishment for the theft of articles of the value of 5s. The Bill ought to be discussed in a larger way in the interests of the public, and every effort should be made by the Government to pass it into law this session.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,),in moving the Second Reading, said the Bill was of a non-controversial character, and the Government had not heard a whisper of opposition to it from any quarter in the House. Its purpose was to enable Courts of Justice to appoint probation officers, and pay them salaries or fees, so that certain offenders whom the Court did not think fit to imprison, on account of their age, character, or antecedents might be placed on probation under the supervision of these officers, whose duty it would be to guide, admonish, and befriend them. Under the Bill the various Courts of Justice would have complete freedom of choice as to the officers they would appoint, and he hoped that with this latitude in a few years experience would show what class of men, or of women, should best be placed in charge of these cases. The Bill embodied the provisions of the First Offenders Act, it was desired by reformers of our penal system throughout the country, and he trusted that the House would give it a Second Reading, leaving the discussion of details to the Committee. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  *MR. CAVEsaid that so far as this Bill re-enacted some of the provisions of the First Offenders Act, he had nothing to say against it; but on reading the Bill he found it difficult to understand exactly what the powers and duties of the probation officers would be. Supposing an offender on probation went about the country in search of employment, would it be the duty of the officer under whose supervision he had been placed to follow him up in order to see how he behaved or could the officer go into a probationer's house without permission? He ventured to say that the Bill as it stood was only a skeleton, but he hoped that in Committee it would be moulded into a practical shape, and that the duties of the probation officers would be more exactly defined. He knew of very many cases where the assistance of the Police Court Missionaries had been the saving of prisoners released under the First Offenders Act; and he wanted an assurance that there would be no objection to the appointment of such missionaries to the position of probation officers.
  *MR. COCHRANEsaid that the Bill had come forward somewhat unexpectedly, and the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had done his best to explain it briefly. But the measure was one of great complexity, and would have to be carefully considered in Committee. He quite agreed that a great deal might be done in making the lot of first offenders easier and more humane than it now was But a great deal depended upon the method. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that the duty of the probation officers was to guide, admonish, and befriend first offenders. That was a point which would require very careful consideration in connection with men who in search of work had gone away from where their offence had been committed. One of the objections to the present administration of the criminal law was that a ticket-of-leaveman, honestly desirous of reforming his life, had frequently to report himself to the nearest police station, that militated against him by making his conviction known. In the same manner
  296
  mach harm might be done to a young offender under this Bill it he were pursued about the country by a probation officer, anxious to guide, admonish, watch, and befriend him, and he would remind the Under Secretary that Section 3 provided that a probation officer might be a police constable. He asked the hon. Gentleman to recognise some of the difficulties which might occur, and possibly at the end of Clause 1 some words should be inserted to insure that those persons charged with the supervision of probationers should be carefully selected for the delicate duties they would have to perform. In the case of girls and young children, women should be employed, and in the case of those probationers whose mental condition was such that it was considered expedient to release them, such persons only should be employed to supervise them whose training and experience fitted them to cope with mental cases. He did not make these few cursory remarks in any hostile spirit, and he was sure that the Government would afford an adequate opportunity for discussing the details of the Bill in Committee.
  MR. PICKERSGILLsaid the Bill would be welcomed by a large body of public opinion in the country. This system of probation had been for many years in active operation in the United States, especially in Massachusetts, and in some of our Colonies, and he believed it had had excellent results. In our own country also the principle of the Bill had been already to some extent carried out, because the Court missionaries had largely performed the duties which it was the object of the Bill to regularise. Whatever might be the effect of the system on adults, there could be no doubt that it would have a salutary effect in the case of children.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYwished to reinforce to some extent the doubts as to what were to be the duties and, still more important, the obligations of this entirely new class of persons they were going to create under the name of probation officers. The Bill created, by using a new word, a new status pupillaris. The intentions of the Bill were undoubtedly excellent and of the very best kind, but hon. Members

  297
  were not doing their duty if they did not draw attention to the fact that the Bill in general terms relegated probationers to what was called the supervision of the probation officers. What deduction was to be made from the liberty of the person who was placed under the control of a probation officer? A new kind of quasi criminal relation was being created by the measure. Would the probation officers have the right of entry into a person's house, and if not why not? Was the officer to have the right of following a person about the country? Such questions as these must necessarily occur to persons when they saw a now kind of legal relationship being created. He did not attach much importance to figures for Massachusetts, because no one would deny that in this country there had always rightly been greater solicitude about the liberty of the subject than was the case in other countries. He wished very well to the intention of the Bill, but it was only right that attention should be drawn to the imperfect way in which some of its provisions had been drawn up.
  MR. MACLEANwished to give his hearty support to the Bill. As one who had had sixteen or seventeen years experience in connection with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children he said that whatever its effect as to adults might be, nothing but good could arise from the probation officers undertaking the charge of children who had come before the Court, for they came from homes which would be all the better for being looked after. He regretted that there was no provision in the Bill making compulsory the holding of children's Courts.
  MR. LEIF JONESthought that it was a mistake to suppose that this Bill would be useful only in the case of children. The probation officers would be very useful in a large number of cases, such as habitual drunkenness, with which the Courts were unable to deal in a remedial sense. It must be remembered that the persons who came under the control of the probation officers would already have become liable to imprisonment or other punishment. He hoped that by tact and judgment the probation officers would be able to rescue these persons, which
  298
  was a great deal more important than punishing them. There was a demand for this Bill among social reformers in the country.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that the Bill really introduced nothing new except the creation of the probation officer. Clause 1 merely reenacted the power which already existed of binding a prisoner over in his own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon. Any of the Members of the House who had sat as magistrates or recorders knew that that was a very common form indeed, and the power had been used in the country for years. The only new point being the appointment of probation officers, he wished to know what their powers ought to be. First offenders were also dealt with most kindly and considerately under the provisions of the law. Before he assented to a new class of officials he would like to know what their powers were to be. It was a common thing to tell a man that if he did not get into trouble again he would hear no more of the case, but would this probation officer have the power to follow a man and be something in the nature of a police officer? He had no particular objection to the Bill if it was merely a benevolent measure to provide and pay somebody like the Court missionary, with no legal powers, to look after the offender. If that was all it was an excellent Bill and he should not think of opposing it.
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Government certainly could not plead guilty to vagueness. He pointed out that Clause 1, subsection (4), explicitly said the Court might order the offender to be—
  "Under the supervision of such person as may be named in the order during the period specified in the order, and such other conditions for securing such supervision as may be specified in the order."
  That was the nature of the powers the Government proposed to give, and as to the "other conditions" they considered that details of that nature had better be determined by regulations or rules of Court. If hon. Members opposite proposed in Committee Amendments to make the terms more explicit, his right hon. friend would no doubt

  299
  consider them. In reply to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, he would point out that Clause 3 gave ample powers to the Court to secure that the offender should obey the order under which he was placed. There were full powers, if the offender failed to observe any of the conditions of his recognisance, to summon him to the Court, and, if necessary, to commit him to prison. No doubt the Bill created an interference with the person's liberty, but it was intended to be an alternative to imprisonment. It was a milder form of punishment than imprisonment. The probation officer was not intended to be a person in uniform like a police officer. It was better for an offender to submit to this supervision than to undergo imprisonment.
  MR. S. T. EVANSconsidered the Bill a short step in the right direction. Its main object was to give Judges and magistrates power, where the offence required something more than a mere binding over, to decide whether the person should be sent to prison or whether some milder punishment might be imposed. It was quite certain that a reform of this kind was remedial in its character. It was not to punish more but to impose a mild form of Penalty so that the offender might not go into the category of gaol-birds.
  MR. CROOKSthought the Bill provided a remedy against offenders slipping back into their old environment and amongst old temptations. If there were somebody just to lay a hand on their shoulder and say, "My friend, unless you behave yourself, I shall feel obliged to return you to a place where you do not want to go," that would often suffice to save them from yielding to temptation. He had known many cases of failure due to persons of this character having slipped back to their old environments; they had finished up with long terms of imprisonment, and one case ended in capital punishment being inflicted.

  PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the publications printed by order of this House or presented to it through Public Departments, and to call attention to any case in which unnecessary expense has been incurred.
  Mr. Cleland, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Crombie, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Toulmin nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the Quorum.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  Public business having been concluded at ten minutes past Eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker left the Chair until a quarter past Eight o'clock.

  RURAL DEPOPULATION.
  MR. ROGERSrose to call attention to the subject of rural depopulation, and to move—"That the progressive decline of population in rural districts is a subject of serious national concern, and that this House ought at once to take such action, legislative and administrative, as will maintain a rural population as a reservoir of national strength and a necessary condition of national well-being." It was, he said, only owing to his deep sense of the importance of the subject that he brought it forward so soon after the notable declaration of policy by the Prime Minister on this subject. The importance of the problem, not only to rural districts, but to the towns, must be his excuse for submitting this Resolution. He had been a resident in a purely rural district for the last fourteen years, and he had come to the conclusion that there was no other matter which so deeply and so vitally affected the welfare of the rural democracy as this question of the depopulation of the land. The facts of the rural exodus were fairly well known, but the House, he hoped, would pardon him if he gave a few figures which would enable them to realise the real gravity of

  301
  the case. In the year 1881 there were 983,919 labourers on the land in Great Britain; in 1891, there were 866,543; and in 1901, there were 689,292, showing a decrease since 1881 of 30 per cont. or nearly 300,000. But they had to add the other persons who were employed in connection with agriculture, and when they took into account one or two classes they would find that whereas in 1881 there were 1,319,000 person engaged in agriculture in various ways, in 1901 the number was just over a round million. But this did not represent the true facts of the case, because the return only gave the number of people actually employed on the land, and they had to add dependents, women and children, and workers in village occupations which were dependent on agriculture, as, for instance, the village blacksmith, the carpenter, and others. It was probably no exaggeration to say that there was something like a million less people living on the land to-day than there were twenty years ago. This was a very unsatisfactory and serious state of things. It meant that we had a million less persons on the land from whose labour could be produced that portion of our food supply which could be grown at home. The causes of this exodus from the rural districts were various. The dulness of village life, the migratory instinct of the young men to leave the village for the towns or the Colonies, the attractions of the towns, were all causes which led to the decrease of the rural population. But the main cause of it he believed to be an economic one. They often heard it said that the conversion of arable land into grass land had had a considerable effect. He believed, however, that the effect of this had been greatly exaggerated. It was a notable fact, and hon. Members would find reference to it in the report of the Board of Agriculture on the state of the rural population, that in Scotland during the thirty years up to 1901 arable land hardly decreased at all compared with grass land; there was hardly any conversion into pasture during those thirty years. But later on there was the same exodus of labourers as in England. He thought that showed, along with other things into which he would not go, that it was not merely a question of turning arable land into grass land, but that there were other causes at work to account for the exodus.
  302
  One of these was the extended use in agriculture of labour-saving machinery. This was particularly to be noted among the large fanners of the country in the south and west and centre of England, where machinery has been used to a very large extent for the last twenty-five years, and it was in those parts where the largest amount of depopulation had taken place. He instanced the case of his own village, only eighty miles from London. Ten years ago a farmer in that village employed nine or ten men, and they were paid wages which amounted in the year to £420. That farm was now consolidated with others; that was to say, it had been added to neighbouring farms, which were all joined together as one large holding. On tins farm there were today employed no regular hands; all the labour was done by a gang of workers who moved about from farm to farm, with the natural result that cottages were uninhabited, and one did not need to go any further to seek the reason of the depopulation in that particular neighbourhood. On a second farm belonging to the same owner there were eight men less than were employed some years ago, and on a third farm there were six men less. The whole of the holdings were turned into a large sheep and cattle run, more like the primitive or colonial type of farm than the highly cultivated farm which they would expect to find within eighty miles of London. This consolidation of farms, probably more than anything else, combined with the use of labour-saving machinery, had brought about the decrease of the country population. In the particular parish of which he was speaking the population had dropped by 18 per cent., and of course it was not only the people who left the village who suffered, but those who remained in it also suffered, such as the small village tradesman, and all those who were dependent on the presence of a population for their means of livelihood. This consolidation of farms had produced a state of things which was deservedly unpopular—he referred to the extension of the system known as the tied-cottage system, which meant that a man took his house as part payment of wages. If he lost his job on the farm he lost not only his wages but his home; and it meant that he could not get work without moving from his native village and leaving all his friends. Nothing destroyed a man's

  303
  sense of independence more quickly than the knowledge that he was possibly living only for a short time in his cottage; he had no interest in his garden, and very little in his home. Again, this system of tied cottages led to the cottages being kept in a bad state of repair. The farmer was often only the middle man in regard to repairs, and he might not be sorry to have the opportunity to lord it over his labourer by refusing to do the repairs. Another fact was that it was the young men who left the country villages for the towns. They usually came to a town with some position already secured, and they performed, looking at it from the national point of view, a highly useful service in repairing the wastage caused by town life. In a memorandum by Mr. Wilson Fox, appended to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Settlements in British Colonies, it was shown, as the result of a large number of investigations, that the following were the facts—
  "Out of nearly 10,000 men out of work or in irregular casual employment as found in Salvation and Church Array Homes and Shelters, and in Rowton Houses, by the distress committees formed under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, 1905, and amongst dock labourers, the percentage of town-bred men ranged from 86 per cent. to 94 per cent., the percentage of country-bred men being only from 6 per cent. to 14 per cent."
  The Report went on to say—
  "But perhaps the most conclusive evidence is afforded by the relatively large proportion of country-bred men employed in a selected number of the larger undertakings and industries, such as the post office, police, municipal service, railways, gas works, breweries, stores, etc. Of the total number so employed in London in these selected industries, early in 1906, 46 per cent, were country born."
  He contended that the statement showed that the towns were very largely dependent upon the existence in rural parishes of a population which could repair the wastage of the towns. There was an interesting passage on this question in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee—
  There cannot, however, be any controversy as to the expediency of arresting, where possible, the exodus to which such baneful results are attributed. Nothing, perhaps, would be so likely to force upon the urban communities the necessity of healing their own sores, and bringing up a healthy population within their own limits, as the cessation of the influx of vigorous bodies to take the place of the crushed and broken by the wheel of city life."
  304
  Even if too gloomy a view of a portion, of London was taken in those extracts the evidence tended to show that the problem affected the town as well as the country. If this depopulation continued at the same rate as in the past, not only would the country districts suffer, but the national physique was in danger of being permanently impaired. With regard to suggested remedies he did not think the artificial raising of the prices of agricultural produce by fiscal reform would be any remedy at all. A tariff of 2s. per quarter on foreign wheat would scarcely raise the price, and a small rise in prices would not have the effect of bringing more land into cultivation, because no farmer in his senses would think of increasing his area of corn cultivation with a tariff of 2s. per quarter. If he was right in his contention that machinery had been a very important factor in the matter, surely no hon. Member would think of setting back the clock in order to bring back the population to the country. In the next place, if they were to adopt a tariff to raise prices high enough to induce farmers to devote a larger area to the production of corn, that would be a great injustice to the large populations in the towns, because it would be a hardship upon the consumer. It was preposterous to suppose that the 40,000,000 people engaged in industry would ever consent to any considerable sacrifice in order to secure a very doubtful advantage for the 1,000,000 people who lived in the country. If no rise in price was produced no advantage would be gained by the home producer. He did not think they could by fiscal reform give any advantage to the producer of home food stuffs unless they raised the price. He would like to quote as a witness on this point the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke with admirable clearness on this question in a speech delivered on the 4th of October, 1904, in Edinburgh, in which he said—
  "A protective policy, as I understand it, is a policy which aims at, supporting or creating home industries by raising home prices. This raising of prices is a necessary step towards the encouragement of an industry under a protective system. The means by which it attains that object is by the manipulation of a fiscal system to raise home prices. If the home prices are not raised the industry is not encouraged. If the industry is encouraged it is by the raising of prices."

  305
  In the face of that statement he thought he was entitled to say that the only possible way by which they could give any advantage to agriculture would be by the raising of home prices, which would be a state of things resented by a large majority of the population in the towns. If the, exodus to the towns was caused largely by machinery it could only be checked by encouraging that type of farming where machinery was least used. That might possibly sound an uneconomic proceeding. They often talked of farmers as if they were all one kind of farmers, but they were nothing of the sort. There were different types of farmers, as distinct in the kind of things they produced and the way they produced them as manufacturers engaged in other industries. Although machinery was in use on large farms there were a number of things done on small farms upon which machinery could not be used. No machinery had yet been invented for breeding or fattening pigs and poultry, or for raising fruit, vegetables, or flowers. All those things depended upon individual attention and care, and they were not articles that could be produced under a system of large production, because they depended for their success upon the individual attention of the man interested and concerned in their successful production. The encouragement of this kind of small holdings and small farms was economic, because the question of labour-saving machinery did not come in, and where machinery was required it could best be employed upon a co-operative basis. In this country two-thirds of the occupiers of land held fifty acres or less, but they only covered 15 per cent. of the total cultivable land. The problem, therefore, was how could they by State action of any kind so increase the proportion of small farmers as to make that 15 per cent. a very much larger proportion of the cultivable land of England? During the last fourteen years the value of the imports of butter, bacon, eggs, poultry, and cheese—the articles produced on the smaller farms—had increased from £27,000,000 to£48,000,000, and that increase of 80 per cent, had not been accompanied by a fall in price, indeed in many respects the prices were higher. With the assistance of a system of co-operation, there was no reason why the English market should not be
  306
  recaptured by the home producer of those articles. Lately there had been some correspondence in the London Press as to the demand for small holdings. He noticed that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members who had contributed to that discussion had called the correspondents of the Board of Agriculture to their assistance. The evidence of those correspondents was very largely biassed by the particular notions they held, and as they were known to be by no means friendly to a system of the sub-division of holdings, he did not attach so much importance to their evidence as to the fact that small farms and small holdings were always let at a higher rent per acre than big farms. If they wanted evidence of the reality of the demand for small farms and small holdings, it was to be found in the fact that the small holders and small farmers were now paying a much higher price for land than the large farmer, and they were prepared to pay the higher rent because they could make a good thing out of it by producing a variety of articles. He would like to give an example or two to the House. In the first place he would take an estate in Wiltshire belonging to the Crown. In one parish, out of 6,645 acres there were 6,575 acres let in large farms. After eliminating the buildings altogether so as to get rid of the most disturbing factor in the comparison, and taking the average gross estimated rental of those acres, he found that it worked out at 7s. 1d. per acre. Taking in the same parish the seventy acres let as small holdings, small farms and allotments, he found, eliminating the buildings, that the average gross estimated rental was £1 17s. 8d per acre, or about five times as much as the rental of the large farms. Taking another parish only about four miles away from the one he had just dealt with, where the soil was different, and where there was a different type of cultivation, he found that out of 1,488 acres 1,250 were let as large farms at a gross estimated rental of 6s. 5d. per acre. The remaining 238 acres let in small holdings and allotments produced a rental of £ 1 14s. 1d. per acre, or more than five times the rent of the land let in large farms. He knew too much about this problem, how-ever, to allow himself to be led away altogether by facts like those. He knew that land let for small holdings was possibly of superior quality; but the

  307
  discrepancy was too great to be explained away except on the assumption that there was a much greater demand for small holdings than for large farms. He would like for a moment to refer to experiments which had been made by various persons in this country. A good deal of pioneer work had been done by landlords in different parts of the country, and he thought the State should realise that it was time for it to step in and do on a large scale what individuals had been trying to do on a small scale, in order to bring about a very much better state of things than could be produced otherwise. Possibly some Members of the House had seen the interesting experiment which had been tried at Winterslow by a Wiltshire landlord named Major Poore. That was a place which, if it had not been taken in hand by one gentleman who know the subject, might have been described as land which, whatever might be done with it, could not be successfully farmed. It had a cold and unlikely soil, and a poor supply of water. The experiment was started on 112 acres, on which there were living one farmer and three labourers. At the present time there were forty-seven tenants in occupation of the land as freeholders. He should say that there were 157 men, women, and children altogether, but what was perhaps more important and striking than all was that they had built thirty-seven houses as the result of their occupation of the land. He contended that the Government might well bring forward legislation with the object of multiplying colonies of that kind. He was very glad in this connection to record his gratitude to Lord Carrington for what he had done in the administration of Crown lands. No doubt many hon. Members were aware of a case in Cambridgeshire where a big farm had been sub-divided and let to eighty-two tenants who were now in occupation of the land. It was a noticeable feature in this case that these men already had buildings, and that therefore the amount to be spent on buildings was not large considering the size of the holdings. There was another case of Crown lands at Bromham where a farm of 240 acres was farmed by one farmer, who gave employment to three or four men. There were now sixty-four tenants, among whom were a number of young men who were taking allotments
  308
  of one or two acres, and who from that would go on until in the end they became small freeholders. That was, to his mind, an illustration of what could be done in connection with the rural life of the country. He had given to the House some of the reasons why it seemed to him in this matter that they nee I not despair of reform. It was not in his opinion a hopeless problem. There were hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who might argue that this could not be an agricultural country. He must totally disagree with them. The very existence of large industrial populations implied that there were markets for our produce. When we had the enormous urban populations in and around London, in Lancashire, in Yorkshire, and in other parts of the country, we had at any rate very large and very good markets which we could supply and which, he believed, we would supply one day to a very considerable extent by the produce of our own people. But we could not do it as long as we had only a million people to do the work in the country districts, and as long as there was land in the country let to such a large extent in big farms and to an increasing extent, as it seemed to him, in farms which were rapidly being consolidated and added together one after another. The Government having put their hand to the plough had expressed their intention not to turn back. He could only hope that having put their hand to the plough they would plough their furrow straight and plough it soon. He begged to move.
  *MR. WALKERin seconding the Motion, said it was essentially a workers' problem, and could not engage too much of their time and attention. Agriculture was essentially the problem which bore on the question of depopulation. In the Report on Agricultural Depopulation, it was made perfectly clear that the decrease in the population had been entirely owing to the decrease in agricultural labourers. While farm labourers had decreased, bailiffs and shepherds had actually increased by 10,000 in the last ten years. Therefore this was a terrible workers' question in the country districts. While there had been a decline in the number of labourers in the last twenty years from 984,000 to 689,000, the decline in the amount of arable land had

  309
  been 2,000,000 acres, or a drop from 17,500,000 to 15,500,000 acres. If they made a simple calculation they found a percentage drop of thirty in the population and a percentage drop of only 11½ in the acreage of arable land. That proved conclusively that the laying of the land down to grass was not the main cause of depopulation in the rural districts. If they put on a duty which would delight the heart of Mr. Chaplin, they would not do much to restore the agricultural population. Labour-saving machinery was the main cause of the decline, and according to the Report of the Committee the adoption of labour-saving machinery had been greater on arable land than on land laid down to grass. The fact was that agriculture, though later in the day, had been subject to the same tendency as the manufacturing industries. But machinery had come to stay, and it was no good trying to get rid of it. It was true that, whereas twenty years ago labour-saving machinery was employed by comparatively few, it had now become almost universal on all holdings of sufficient size to make its use practicable. He found in the Report that in dairy farming the decrease in population was not so great as in other cases, and they had encouraging reports from Lincolnshire and elsewhere where fruit and vegetables had been grown. The following statement appeared in the Report on small holdings in regard to what had been done in Holland, Lincolnshire—
  "The many small occupiers who get a living in growing flowers, fruit, and vegetables, have greatly, if not altogether, checked the decline."
  That was a clear sign-post showing the road they ought to follow. There were other causes for the decline in rural population, such as lack of attraction and luck of incentive in the country districts. It might also be admitted that the advantages offered by the Canadian Government acting through their emigration agents had had a great deal to do with attracting the youth of the country by genuine offers of 160 acres of free land. If we wished to keep a hold on the youth in the country villages we must offer counter-attractions. As in our educational system we were trying by a system of scholarships to make an education
  310
  ladder, so that the poor with ability might not through their poverty fail if they were able to rise to the secondary and technical schools, and even to the Universities, so we wanted diversified opportunity to enable the labourer to rise to allotments and small holdings, and thus reach an independent position. He attached very much importance to the scarcity and inadequacy of cottages in the rural districts. While in regard to small holdings there were certain differences of opinion among the correspondents of the Board of Agriculture, there was practical unanimity on the question of housing. The Report on the decline in the agricultural population contained the following—
  "Among specific causes of discontent, a deficiency of adequate or satisfactory housing accommodation is reported from about thirty counties. The details where given may be referred to, but, speaking generally, there is evidence not only—or perhaps it should be said not so much—of an actual scarcity of cottages, though this is mentioned in some cases, as of a lack of cottages which satisfy the more exigent requirements of the labourers in these times, or comply with the demands of vigilant sanitary authorities. As with every other class, the rural labourers' standard of comfort has been raised, and they are not now contented with the accommodation which previous generations placidly accepted."
  Referring to the condition of things in Hampshire with respect to housing, the Report said—
  "Mr. Perkins thinks that if the number of cottages in rural Hampshire were increased by 20 per cent. during the next ten years there would scarcely be one vacant. At least half required structural alterations and additions, and 5 per cent. ought to be condemned as unfit for habitation. The difficulty is aggravated by the letting of cottages to 'week-enders,' or to people who come to reside in the country, and are willing to pay a good deal more than the labourer can afford. A further demand is created by the servants of large householders who come to reside in the country."
  There was, perhaps, scarcely anyone in the House who did not know from his own experience of cases where the owners of motor cars had bought up two or three cottages and turned them into a single house, because they wished to spend the week-end in the country. There was also evidence on the same lines in the report of the Select Committee that sat on the Housing Bill of last session. The Committee pointed out that the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 was primarily intended to cope

  311
  with the evils in the towns and was only incidentally applicable to rural districts. They went on to say that there had been no adequate inspection of the cottages by the local sanitary authorities; and they recommended that cheaper loans should be given to landowners for building cottages and that the period of repayments should be extended. Even so, as was shown by elaborate statistics, some loss had to be borne either by the Exchequer or the rates so long as economic rent was not paid by the cottagers. It seemed to him that the present system of demanding a lower rent instead of granting an increase of wages to the agricultural labourer was a most pernicious one. It might be asked how an economic rent could be paid. It appeared to him that the most promising solution of the problem was to attach more land to the cottages, the working of which would enable the labourers to pay a remunerative rent. The Report of the Select Committee last year on the Housing of the Working Classes Acts Amendment Bill stated that—
  "There is abundant evidence to show that the difficulty of rent charge would be largely diminished by the addition of land to the cottages. The labourers and others who gave evidence before the Housing Commission of 1885 on the subject stated that the men could pay higher rent and would be pleased to do so if land, arable or pasture, were attached to their dwellings. One witness, of considerable experience, while admitting the difficulty of paying rent for good cottages alone, said it was 'easy to pay fair rent for land and cottage together.' He considered the two to be so necessary that he declined to consider them apart. The above evidence as to the great value to labourers of small plots of land to supplement their wages has been amply confirmed by the evidence received by the Committee."
  When he read that paragraph he thought he saw in it a hopeful line for future action; but he confessed that he was very much disappointed to find, on reading the Report further, that the Committee did not follow out that particular idea at all. He admitted that it might be difficult to follow it out at any great length, because the system under which cottages were let at an uneconomic rent was almost universal. Still, he was sorry that the Committee did not take more evidence upon that subject, because it would have been useful to the Government when they introduced their Rural Housing Bill, which he hoped to see pre-
  312
  sented before the session was very much older. In that way he hoped it might be possible to build cottages without any or at a very small loss to the rates or to the Exchequer. He was informed by one of his Irish colleagues that no less than 4,000 cottages were to be built this year in Ireland under the Irish Labourers Act of last session, and that it was hoped that there would be little, if any, charge upon the local rates. What they had to aim at in the country districts was the greatest diversity of occupation of those who dwelt there, and the multiplication of holdings of various descriptions. From official evidence they had the encouraging fact that there were at the present time in Great Britain nearly 250,000 holdings of between five and fifty acres. No doubt a good deal of that might be land held by people who had other occupations. If that were so it did not make the thing any less valuable to them, and in desiring that small holdings should be extended in England they did not necessarily mean that everybody who had a small holding should be entirely dependent upon it for his livelihood. Were they to try to meet the demand for small holdings by legislation or simply by trusting to the ordinary forces of supply and demand? That question had been settled once and for all by the Act of 1892 which, however, had failed to achieve anything like the object which it was hoped to achieve. In the first ten years that elapsed after the Act came into existence only 652 acres were provided in the way of small holdings, and since then only 130 acres had been added. The Act had now been in operation fifteen years, and surely it was a beggarly return that less than 1,000 acres should have been provided during that time under an Act which was passed by the House in the hope that it would do a great deal of good to the agricultural industry of the country. Lord Onslow's Committee had said that this result was largely due to the apathy of the county councils. Another difficulty had been that when small holdings were required and a public inquiry had been held, the price of land at once went up. The apathy of the county councils had, he thought, led to the discouragement of agricultural labourers up and down the country. The labourer was also very often discouraged when he saw that the small

  313
  holder was paying double or treble rent for land which was no better than that of the large farmer. What he would like to see was suggested in the Report of Lord Onslow's Committee, that it should be the duty of a small holdings committee of each county council to inquire every year, from the minor local authorities within the county, what land was occupied in the district by small holders; whether there was a demand for further land; and whether there was any available land. As to the question of land being sent up in price when a county council wanted to buy it, he could not dwell upon that as it would mean a now valuation law. Lord Onslow's Committee reported that they had not found that the people of this country wished to buy small holdings. They, unlike other people, would prefer to hire the laud, provided they had fixity of tenure; and it was quite clear that the Act of 1892 had been a failure. He welcomed Lord Onslow's recommendation that a central department should be established under the Board of Agriculture which should act for itself, and do what it could to encourage local authorities to move in the matter. On the point of Governmental action and purchase by the Government he held very strong views, because, having travelled in Australia and New Zealand, he had seen how successfully this purchase system could be carried out. In New Zealand they passed twelve years ago a Land Settlement Act. They purchased 158 estates with an acreage of 1,000,000 acres for £5,500,000. The sites were inspected and valued with extreme care, and sometimes three independent valuations were made, the Board of Land Purchase Commissioners having discretion as to applications. What was the result? In the last financial year 4½ per cent. was returned on the total outlay by the Government. The financial difficulty so often quoted here—lack of ability on the part of those who had taken small holdings to find sufficient capital for working and cost of equipment—had also been dealt with in New Zealand. There was the Advances to Settlers Act of 1894, under which sixteen freehold and five leasehold securities had been realised with the result that in most cases a fair surplus had been realised on the amount advanced, and in no case was there an actual loss, on a total of over £5,000,000. He hoped
  314
  that, experimentally at all events, something of the kind which had been attempted in New Zealand might be tried here, although he agreed that the process must be very slow unless hiring operations were undertaken at the same time. Parliamentary action was therefore advocated in two directions, directly through the Board of Agriculture, and through increased power being given to local authorities. These questions of housing and the distribution of land went to the very goal of our national well-being, and he hoped the Government would tackle them soon, and tackle them in earnest. He begged to second the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the progressive decline of population in rural districts is a subject of serious national concern, and that this House ought at once to take such action, legislative and administrative, as will maintain a rural population as a reservoir of national strength and a necessary condition of national well-being."—(Mr. Rogers.)
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid there might be many reasons for the failure of the Act of right 1892, but no one who had heard his hon. friend the Member for the Bordesley Division describing the great success which had attended it in one part of Worcestershire where it had been put fairly in force, could doubt but that there had been considerable unwillingness on the part of the county councils to do what they had been invited to do, and practically engage on a large scale in land speculation. But there were also other forces which had interfered with the Act being put into force—namely, the nature of the advances, and the practically prohibitive terms on which they had to be made. The right hon. Member for Bordesley, he was glad to see, had brought in a Bill to amend the Act and to bring it into operation, but it had been blocked night after night apparently in order that His Majesty's Government should bring in a larger scheme of their own. He sympathised with the object of the Motion. The magic of property and the desire to obtain it were very great. People in this country would like to have some of the facilities for acquisition which were provided for their fellow-citizens across

  315
  St. George's Channel, and if they had, there would be a very great change for the better in rural England. He hoped we should see to an increasing extent the labourer becoming the owner of his own land.
  MR. BLACKdeclared that the real solution of the problem lay in the wages question. Nowadays young men were better educated than their fathers had been, and they refused to be content with the dreary life of ill-requited toil, with no prospect but the workhouse for their latter days. Only three weeks ago from the small Bedfordshire village of Lidlington five young men went out to Canada, and the country which had bred and fed and reared them had lost their services, while Canada had gained. Nowadays the average labourer earned only 14s. 6d. per week, and that was not a living wage. Farm rents during this time were increasing, while wages of labourers were almost stationary. We were putting the landowner first, the farmer second, and the labourer third; but that order ought to be reversed. He would like to see a minimum wage established for these labourers at not less than £1 a week. If the labourer were better paid he would be worth more, and until he was better paid the problem of rural depopulation would never be solved. In the long run the farmer could get no more out of the workers than their pay. It was the same with cattle and horses. They only got as much out as they put in. It was true the labourer got a cheap cottage, but that was part of the plan to deprive him of his just earnings. On many estates cottages formed part of the furniture of the estate. A cottage costing £150 or £200 could not be provided foils, or 1s. 6d. a week rent. As a matter of fact, in many cases a sufficient number of these cottages were not provided. But if the labourer were paid a fair wage he could pay for a better cottage. The agricultural labourer had never had a fair chance of getting a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and of providing the necessities and a few of the comforts of life for wife and family. This proposal he believed would enable the labourers to become generally better customers for commodities, and in that way it would react beneficially over the whole industrial life of the country.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTthought that to whatever section of the House hon. Members belonged they must be in entire sympathy with this Resolution and the spirit and manner in which it had been moved and seconded. Opinions might differ as to the means by which the Resolution was to be carried out; but there was no doubt that the desertion of our villages and hamlets must have an unwholesome, if not a disastrous, effect on our national life. These people went from the pure air in the country to the stifling slums of the great cities, and that must, and undoubtedly did have, an evil effect on the character and physique of the people. When they came to contemplate the remedy for this state of things they were told about the burden of life in the villages, but they were not told how that state of things was to be remedied. He entirely agreed with what had been said about doing something more, and he had always worked loyally with his colleagues in Ulster so far as facilitating the building of cottages and the acquisition of allotments were concerned. The only remedy in his opinion was the fiscal remedy. We boasted of being a free trade country, a position we shared with only one country in the world—China; yet our customs taxation imposed by the Government was 12s. 2d. per head of the population. The customs taxes of the United States were 11s. 8d., and those of the so-called protectionist country—our great trade rival, Germany—were only 8s. 2d. We had no right therefore to claim that we were a free trade country. We were protectionists to our own Empire, we taxed the tea and sugar and other products of our Empire, but in the emphatic words of the Prime Minister we slammed the door in the face of our Empire.
  AN HON. MEMBER: The Prime Minister said we did not slam the door.
  MR. CROOKS: We have no door to slam.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that during the last few weeks the Colonies felt that we had slammed the door. But he for one would not add to the cost of living in any way, knowing the wages of the agricultural labourer in the county he had

  317
  the honour to represent, and knowing that among his supporters he had none more loyal than the agricultural labourers. Their wages did not reach the ideal of £1 a week of which they had heard, but if the scheme of tariff reform were carried out they would rise to that ideal. He would endeavour by such means to cheapen the cost of luxuries and necessities such as tea, sugar, and tobacco, and he believed that such a reform would also raise wages by stimulating the great agricultural industry which, after all, must be helped and stimulated if we were to keep the population on the land at all. It was only by that means that the bone and sinew of the nation could be retained in the country—the population for whose condition no remedy had been found in this Motion.
  *SIR FRANCIS CHANNINGsaid the hon. Member was very anxious to introduce Tariff Reform and thought it would raise the wages of the labourers to £1 a week. But he thought the hon. Member would have recollected that during the time protection was in force in this country wages were at the very lowest level they ever reached. If the hon. Gentleman had studied more carefully the wages of the agricultural labourers in protectionist Germany and France, he would know that they were only two-thirds of what they were in free-trade England. He would refer the hon. Member to the evidence given before the Tariff Reform Commission, if indeed the evidence had been published as well as the Report. One of the ablest farmers in the Midlands was examined before the Tariff Reform Commission and was able from his own farm accounts of many years to produce figures which showed conclusively, as he assured him (Sir Francis), that if the Tariff Reform proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were in force, the result would have been that his outlay in the cost of working his farm would be so increased, that it would cost him£3 for every £2 he added to his income. These facts he was able to establish in spite of the cross-examination of Mr. Chaplin and the other members of the Commission, who were wholly unable to answer the case thus made. It was really not worth while to waste further time on such absurd delusions. This was a very serious evil, and one
  318
  with which he for one had laboured to deal, and he hoped the whole House would so labour irrespective of Party or economic views. What he urged was that rural depopulation would not be remedied until a real hope was created in the agricultural population, by the agricultural industry being so organised that it was enabled to make a thoroughly good profit out of the land. Our agricultural education in the present day was quite unsuited to develop the higher energies-and capacities of those engaged on the land. No cause was so potent in producing depopulation as the feeling of despair which the conditions of country life bred.
  *MR. PARKERsaid the question of rural depopulation was a great deal more than an economic question; it lay at the root of our national prosperity in its best sense. He did not intend to reply at all to the remarks which had been made on the subject of tariff reform, which, with certain hon. Members, turned up like King Charles' head, no matter what might be the subject under discussion. Reference had been made to the breakdown of the Act of 1892, but one of the chief causes of that breakdown had not been mentioned, namely, that the landlord element in the county councils, an element so strongly represented, had hitherto regarded it as no part of their interest to insist on a larger number of small holders being brought on to the land. ["Oh."] He did not think that there was the slightest doubt about that, and he thought it was borne out by the evidence. He believed that only two county councils had as yet put the Act into operation. Each decade of the last fifty years had shown a continuous exodus from the country to the towns. During the ten years ended 1901 there was a reduction of the rural population by twenty per cent. There was one reason for this decrease of the population employed on the land which had not been mentioned, and that was the "make-haste-to-be rich" idea which prevailed amongst the population as a whole. It was due also to the fact that the labourer had been to school, and had had a sort of education—an education that had created a spirit of discontent that was not in all cases a righteous discontent, an education that had not been fitted to the man and given him a desire to stay

  319
  where he was and get the best out of the country in which he lived. There was a strong desire among labourers for access to the land, with which desire there was little sympathy on county councils. A purchase system with increase of owners was not required, but what was required was security of tenure; an educational system fitting a man for his occupation; encouragement for such home industries as could be followed by a man and his family in winter time when work in the fields ceased. The agricultural labourer who came into the town under the impression that he would improve his position very often found out his mistake when he came to compete with the labourer in the City. When he was a boy eight years of age his father was employed on the estate of a gentleman who was once a member of the House, and who was busily engaged in trying to get into the House again. This gentleman, Mr. Chaplin, was the landlord of the particular farm on which his father was employed at a wage of 12s. or 13s. a week. But in addition to that wage, the labourer had many things added in this particular instance, such as a cottage, the garden, three tons of coal every year, a fat pig, the privilege of gleaning the fields behind the labourers, &c, and the result was the wage instead of being 12s. or 13s. was probably nearer 22s. a week. To-day the wages in that particular district were less than they were thirty-five years ago. In addition to the causes of depopulation in rural areas to which he had referred he would emphasise the fact that landlords could considerably improve existing conditions if they ceased to regard their estates as possessions which enabled them to lord it over their labourers. [Cries of "No."] Yes; he spoke from personal knowledge and experience. They must cease to lord it over them in the matters of religion, of education, of politics, and of freedom of thought and conscience. If they wanted a healthy and contented peasantry it would be necessary for Parliament to act, and to act quickly, in the best interests of the nation as a whole. He had much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he did not for a moment claim for himself or for those who sat around him any superior knowledge on this
  320
  subject, but he thought it was a very good thing that the House of Commons should turn from high political matters in order to interest themselves in one of the most serious questions of the present day, and that they should seek calmly and dispassionately, and, if possible in the House of Commons, without Party feeling, for some remedy which would assist in the solution of the problem which lay before them. They were in search of something which would prevent the labourers from leaving their work in the country. Various remedies had been suggested, with most of which he thought they agreed. They all wanted good cottages, better wages, and employment; these were all remedies in which there was a great deal of truth, but they were not good for all cases. They might build more cottages, create more small holdings and pay higher wages, but that would not remedy the exodus of labourers from all parts of the country. The rush of the agricultural labourer to the town was really due to the spirit of the age, its restlessness and desire for amusement, and also to the force of example. Their grandfathers and great grandfathers used to drink heavily and so did the middle and lower classes. As time went on and education and knowledge spread, the upper classes drank less, and so did the middle and lower classes, and the force of example went on in that way. There ought to be a spirit of emulation in all classes. They all wished to better themselves. The agricultural labourer read of one of his own class making a fortune by coming to town, and thereupon he became dissatisfied with following the plough. The town had the same attraction for the upper classes also. An ancestor of his who had the honour of representing the City of London was content to come to town twice a year to vote, and to make perhaps two speeches in four years. Would the hon. Baronet who now sat for the City be content with a speech in two years? Would the Leader of the Opposition desire to pass his time in Scotland, wearing the kilt and tossing the caber, and only coming to the House twice a year to vote? Not a bit of it. In like manner the agricultural labourer thought the country dull, and he drifted to the town, not only to his own detriment, but to the loss of the nation. He thought that hon. Members were rather apt to forget all these things;

  321
  they appeared to imagine that there was a universal panacea which could be applied to this problem. The fact was often overlooked that in these matters the real secret of success was application and concentration.
  *MR. BECKsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, in believing that the desire for novelty characteristic of this age had much to do with rural depopulation. He, however, begged the House to remember that our present system directly assisted to drive men of enterprise from the land, whereas land reformers were desirous of doing everything possible to counteract the tendency common to all civilised nations, of agriculturists to migrate to the towns. He was sure that all parties shared in this desire, however much they might differ as to methods. For instance, they on that side had a keen appreciation of the way in which the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham had kept this question before the country. After the very convincing speeches of the mover and seconder of the Resolution there was little for him to say. The part of the Resolution which he particularly supported was that contained in the two words "at once." Nobody would deny that time and again the people in the rural districts had had held out to them on this subject hopes which had not been realised. They hoped the Government would grasp this nettle firmly, and introduce legislation on practical lines. He was aware that it was no easy task, and the debate had shown the extraordinary divergence of opinion in regard to the remedies suggested. He thought, however, that the great remedy was a ladder by which the agricultural labourer could climb up into the farmer class. In the constituency which he represented there was an excellent example of what could be done when men got hold of small portions of land for themselves. The soil there was pre-eminently suitable for all kinds of what were called the smaller agricultural industries. In that particular district a most remarkable change had come over the country since men had been able to get possession of small holdings, and he wished to add his voice to those which had already been raised in favour, not of small owners, but
  322
  of small tenants. He certainly granted that to a certain extent small owners had been a success, but there had been cases in which such owners had rack-rented more than any larger landlord would ever have done. Moreover, they were tied to a particular district and a particular piece of land in a way which was detrimental to their further progress. He had sincere pleasure in supporting the Resolution. No greater mistake could be made by hon. Members or by other reformers, than to suppose that the agricultural labourer was an unintelligent or stupid person. His own belief and experience was that no man was quicker to grasp opportunities than the agricultural labourer. It was the business of the House to help him, and he was sure that all, irrespective of party, were anxious to provide him with opportunities for the exercise of his energy and perseverance.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYcongratulated the mover of the Motion on the courtesy and consideration which he had shown to those opposed to him in the manner in which he had brought the question before the House. He would like to make one allusion to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Halifax, who had spoken on behalf of the Labour Party. He was sorry the hon. Member had made the acquaintance of any landlord who found pleasure in attempting to dictate to his tenants in any matter of religion or politics. Such landlords were not known to him, and he doubted whether any man would make that assertion and corroborate it. Referring to the system of tied cottages, he said that on his own estate he had thought it better to break away from it, and he was rather in favour of the suggestion made by the mover of the Resolution. It was a curious fact disclosed by his own experience that a long tenure or occupation by the same man was more likely to result from the untied system. That might be a good system in one county where, perhaps, the farms were smaller, and where acquaintanceship between the owner and the occupier was more direct, but it might not hold good in another county where the conditions were different. The hon. Member must not make the mistake of arguing generally from one particular locality. If he would look

  323
  at the North of England he would find that nothing would induce some people to remain in their cottages more than a year; they would insist upon going to different employers. When the hon. Member suggested that to stop rural depopulation we must go back to more primitive methods of farming, he was treading on very dangerous ground. If we went back to more primitive methods we should interfere with the system on which all our high-grade breeding of stock rested, and all that had given to this country its reputation in that direction. That would be abolished. It was by practising the highest scientific farming, and by using the best possible implements, that we had been enabled to maintain our great reputation as a farming country. The hon. Member must bear that in mind when he argued for the original type of farming as being most likely to check rural depopulation. The hon. Member had referred to the cost of buildings, but he himself thought that what was said on that question would, from the economic point of view, break down if subjected to examination. The hon. Member had said that there was a great demand for small holdings, but had he considered how limited the capital of agricultural labourers was who had to enter upon a holding of from three up to ten acres? He had no capital to risk in building, and often his sole capital was the promise of a loan from somebody. Then it must be remembered that a man who did not bring capital into a holding was naturally more willing to take risks in cultivation than a man with capital. The hon. Member had made a remark touching on the delicate subject of the possible effects of a duty on corn. The last thing why a man should support tariff reform was the idea that he was going to get an increased profit on his corn. It might give him advantages in other ways, but not an increased price for his corn. The hon. Member had also referred to emigration as the cause of rural depopulation, and there he was in close agreement with hon. Members on both sides of the House. But how were they going to check emigration? He maintained that they might check it by making the conditions of life on the land in this country such as would make labourers and small holders prosperous and comfortable even in their old age. Another question
  324
  raised was the insufficiency of the supply of cottages for agricultural labourers. He would like to see a wider knowledge and appreciation of the really splendid efforts which were being made by landlords all over England in the direction of the provision of fine cottages for their farm hands. Full credit should be given to those landlords who were trying to provide cottages which involved a direct heavy loss upon them. He knew from personal experience that a pair of cottages in his own county cost not less than £400, and they were let at £4 a year each, which was less than it cost to keep them up. He agreed with the hon. Member that wages should be based on the profits of the trades which gave employment to the workers; but he thought that £1 a week was a more accurate estimate, including incidental advantages, than 12s. or 14s. 6d. a week, of the average wages of agricultural labourers. Youngsters, as they were now brought up, had an instinctive desire for promotion; and they often fled to the towns where there seemed to be more promise of promotion open to them. He himself believed in a system of promotion. Some years ago he adopted a system by which his agricultural labourers rose steadily in position according to the number of years of their service, and since that time not a single labourer had left his service, except, of course, from accidental circumstances. Very hard references were made to the landlords in these matters, but he believed that it was more statesmanlike to encourage and stimulate them to make these experiments than to bring the State into play and to do these things by the irritating process of compulsion which seemed to recommend itself to many land reformers so that the landowners should not have the credit of doing them. Having some practical knowledge of the question, he felt competent to speak upon the subject, but it was a source of great satisfaction to himself, personally, that a great national question of this sort had been taken up in the spirit which had been manifested that evening.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,.): I am glad to reciprocate all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to the way in

  325
  which this debate has been conducted, however much we may differ as to the means of carrying out the Motion which has been moved and seconded in such an able way. Although there may be some difference, there is none as to the urgency of this question. My hon. friend the Member for Wiltshire has referred to the decline of the agricultural population, and no one has differed from his statement of the gravity of the problem, and therefore, it is the fact that wherever we sit in this House we wish to deal with the question, and to apply any possible remedies. My hon. friend explained some of the causes, and said that in the main they were of an economic character. It is not possible for me to follow him into all the details, but one point he made did strike me particularly, and that was that, as he said, one of the causes of depopulation was that of adding farm to farm. I must say that I agree with that, but it is a practice which is not so common as it was in the seventies, when it was very prevalent. At the present moment I think the tendency is, where the landlords have the opportunity, to split up large farms, but the opportunity and the power of the landlords is so limited that I think it is very desirable to aid that process of sub-dividing again farms which joined together in the last century, and to discourage the system of adding farm to farm if it has not already come to an end. Then we are told that there are other remedies. It is suggested by some hon. Members on the other side that fiscal reform would be a remedy, but I will only say that in regard to the problem of getting the labourer back to the soil and giving him some interest in the cultivation of it by allotments and small holdings, fiscal reform is certainly not the remedy. The agricultural labourer has no desire for a return of the times when labourers' wages were 7s. or 8s. a week and the price of wheat was 80s. a quarter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport said that the farmer would be very foolish indeed if he advocated
  326
  fiscal reform hoping to get an increased price for his wheat. On the other hand, I do not think he would be so foolish as to advocate fiscal reform which raised the price of what he bought and not what he sold. I sympathise with the idea of the hon. Member for Wiltshire that we should aim at creating a ladder for the agricultural labourer, so that a man who has done well on an allotment may rise to the position of a small farmer, and eventually have the opportunity of rising to the position of the occupier of a large farm. No doubt many Members of this House, in common with myself, have had experience of the man who began life as an agricultural labourer, and by his own industry and thrift become in middle life a substantial farmer, and in his old age able to establish his sons on farms. Our desire should be to give more of those opportunities to labourers who, by having shown thrift and ability, prove themselves worthy of being helped and of being advanced in life from small occupiers to large farmers. It is an entire mistake, however, to suppose that on this side of the House there is any desire to split up the whole country into small holdings. Nothing of the kind is desired. The whole of our desire is that there shall be holdings of every description, so as to afford opportunities of improvement in the condition of capable men. Questions of building by-laws and sanitary improvements are more for my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board and his Department than for me, but anything the House can do to promote improvement in these matters will aid in solving the problems we are considering. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Honiton Division has alluded to the unwillingness of county councils to engage in land speculation, but I do not think that in regard to small holdings there is much speculation. I think we have had sufficient proof of the success of small holdings to make the risk, if any, very slight. Men who live on the land and buy the land know perfectly well

  327
  that proper care should be taken in selecting the tenants and in putting the right men on the land, and they cannot understand why the county councils should not take the same care as ordinary landlords to do the same thing; nor can I see why they should not. It has been said that there are large numbers of landlords on the county councils, and it is as necessary that they should take the same care in the selection of tenants as others do in order to make the small holdings a success. This Resolution, which deals with the decline of population in rural districts, goes on to say that it is necessary that this House should take action as regards legislation and administration. I should like to point out to the House that as regards administration a good deal has already been done since my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture has been appointed Commissioner of Crown Lands. No sooner was he appointed than he at once facilitated the letting of land in small holdings and allotments in every way. What has been the result of his efforts? My noble friend is in absolute sympathy with the provision of small holdings and the encouragement of agricultural labourers to remain on the land and to make the best they can of it in becoming occupiers of farms. Out of fourteen counties in which there are Crown lands spontaneous applications have been made in eleven for small holdings. Take, for instance, South Lincolnshire, where eighty-seven applications have been received by my noble friend as Crown Commissioner, for 2,800 acres, and he feels that he will be able to satisfy 50 per cent. of those applications without depriving a single farmer of his home or his livelihood. It is curious, and at the same time very satisfactory, to know that the great majority of those men who made applications are already allotment holders, showing that the men who have under previous legislation got allotments are the very men who have put their foot on the first rung of the ladder, and are now
  328
  proceeding higher in order that they may become small holders. I am one of those who approach this question of providing small holdings and cutting up big farms from the point of view that at the same time we must be very careful indeed that we do nothing unjust to the sitting tenant. Unless there is very good reason indeed, that man must not be interfered with, and if he is interfered with at all it must not be done in any way, as my noble friend has said, to deprive him of his own home or of his own livelihood. In the parish of Welby in Yorkshire, there are large estates of 3,600 acres, and there have been applications for 500 acres for small holdings. At the present moment of those 3,600 acres 2,000 acres are held by four farmers alone, and three of those farmers are non-resident, and do not live in the parish. I think that to have absentee landlords is undesirable, and it is also undesirable to have absentee farmers. Therefore it is no grievance to a man if he is not living in the parish, and if he is not living on his farm and does not farm it himself, that others who are anxious to farm land in the parish should have a portion of the farm of the absentee farmer. In Cambridgeshire, my hon friend the Member for Newmarket has been, able in the most successful way to cut up a large farm of Crown land of over 900 acres. It had been yielding no rent at all, and was carried on, I understand, at a loss, as is too often the case with land owned by a landlord who is not on the spot to look after it himself. What has the President of the Board of Agriculture been able to do? He has been able to let it at £700 a year, to secure a profit instead of a loss for the Crown, and at the same time to split up the land into small holdings to the number of seventy-five, thus providing employment and bringing back to the land a large number of persons.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What about buildings?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I have already explained to the House that a sum of about £1,800 has been provided for building, and to add to the houses already in existence. My noble friend, at an expenditure of £1,800, on which he receives interest, has been able to place seventy-five men on the land, he is getting a rent of £700 a year instead of no lent at all, and in having done all this I certainly think that he has done something well worthy of imitation. Of course we are all in agreement on this subject. Lord Onslow, the ex-President of the Board of Agriculture, when he was in office referred to this very question of small holdings. He said he would be very glad to introduce a measure to facilitate the provision of small holdings and the division of large holdings into smaller holdings, but that he did not feel justified in drafting a Bill that had no chance of becoming law. I can assure the House that we have the same feeling as to the necessity of introducing a measure for small holdings and the division of larger holdings into smaller holdings. But we do not say that there is no time to do it, and that it would be a waste of time to draft a Bill because there is no time to give facilities for it. It is just the contrary. The present Government mean to introduce a Bill, and mean to find facilities for it; they mean to carry the Bill through, and to deal with a question which the late Government did not deal with. This Government means to find the time, and they will not allow to weigh with them an objection which Lord Onslow, when President of the Board of Agriculture, advanced as a reason for not drafting a Bill, though the late Government had ten years in which to deal with this important question. On what lines the question ought to be dealt with is a very large subject indeed, and the House will not expect me at this hour to enter into it. But there is no doubt as to the way in which the matter should be approached. We must see whether the Act of 1892 has
  330
  been satisfactory; whether the county councils have really tried to purchase or hire by agreement and have failed for no fault of their own. As regards compulsory powers, which are wanting under the Act of 1892, I think we may very well take advice from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, whose interest in this question has been so very sincere, so constant, and so consistent. The right hon. Gentleman in giving evidence before the Committee on whose Report the Act of 1892 was founded, said it was desirable not to recommend compulsion but to see how such an Act would work, and if necessary obtain compulsion in another Act thereafter. We have certainly seen that the Act of 1892 has not worked satisfactorily from the point of view of small holdings being provided generally by county councils. I am not going to blame the county councils, because they may not have had sufficient inducement to deal with this question; but it is perfectly clear that an amendment of the Act of 1892 is required, and that that very power which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley said might be necessary—the power of compulsion—will have to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman said that although it might not be possible to introduce it into that Act it might be necessary to do so in the future. It is quite clear that the time has come when it is necessary to ask for compulsory powers of purchase for county councils, and that county councils shall be made aware that this is a question with which they must deal, and that the country at large expects them to see that every opportunity is given to every labourer and every working man to get upon the land and rise. An agricultural labourer can look forward to little unless he has a prospect of acquiring a small holding and so improving his position. I venture to say that any Member of this House who is an owner of land, if he has a small holding vacant, has fifty applications for

  331
  it. His great difficulty is not to select a good man but to discriminate between the many applications which are made to him. There was a reference made tonight to the fact that small holdings are let at rentals out of all proportion to the surrounding land, and even at a price which, if it does not mean failure, at all events means that the small holder is very much handicapped in making it pay with the land surrounding him let in larger quantities at lower rents. In any cases where there have been failures those failures may be traced to the fact that the man in his anxiety to get a small farm has paid more than he could afford. It has been the experience of landlords who like myself let small holdings that it has been necessary to refuse rents which have been offered for small holdings and to accept smaller rents, because the landlord knew the tenant would either fail, or live under conditions which no right-minded landlord would desire to see his tenant living under. I can only say the Government cordially accept the Motion which has been moved so ably by my hon. friend.
  *MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that apparently the Ministerial panacea for rural depopulation was the provision of small holdings. He would like to draw attention to the fact which had not been yet mentioned, that the same rural depopulation was going on in every country in Europe, even although there were to be found there the so-called advantages upon which some hon. Members laid so much stress, namely, small holdings, protection, fixity of tenure, and occupying ownership. He therefore ventured to submit to the House that the mere provision of smallholdings was not the only thing which was going to stop rural depopulation in England. It would appear to be assumed by some that no small holdings existed in England at the present moment, but if
  332
  they inquired they would find that the majority of holdings in this country were under fifty acres, if not under twenty-five acres. The hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture had stated that the Government were going to introduce a Small Holdings Bill. He suggested that as the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture was now making some interesting experiments on land under his control, it would be better in the interests of the agricultural community as a whole to wait and see how those experiments turned out before attempting to legislate for the artificial provision, of small holdings. He had grave doubts whether small holdings would be a success except under favourable conditions, and he believed that in the majority of cases they were only successful where the small holder was engaged in a subsidiary employment as well. The hon. Baronet had alluded to the Burwell Farm near Newmarket where the provision of buildings for eighty-two small holders was carried out for the small sum of £1,800. That was a very exceptional case as there were no cottages to provide, and he believed all those who were now established as small holders there gained their living in the past by driving people to the races. That was an employment they were still able to carry on.
  Resolved, That the progressive decline of population in rural districts is a subject of serious national concern, and that this House ought at once to take such action, legislative and administrative, as will maintain a rural population as a reservoir of national strength and a necessary condition of national well-being.—(Mr. Rogers.)

  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
  Read a second time and Committed to a Standing Committee.
  Adjourned at seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.