Commons Sitting of 12 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ammanford Gas Bill,
City of London (Street Traffic) Bill,
United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution [Lords,]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill [By Order,]
Order for Second Reading read and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

FRIMLEY AND FARNBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Ordered, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Frimley and Farnborough District Water Bill that they have power to inquire into and report whether it would be practicable and reasonable to impose obligations upon the promoters to supply water by measure for agricultural purposes within their limits of supply; and, if so, under what conditions persons should be entitled to demand and receive such supply."—[Mr. Stanier.]

WELLS GAS BILL.
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 204 and 235 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the second time:
"That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on the Bill have leave to sit and proceed forthwith."—[Mr. Caldwell.]

NEW WRIT—EDINBURGH (WEST).
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD (Chief Opposition Whip) moved Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD (Chief Opposition Whip) moved: "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in the
1796
present Parliament for the City of Edinburgh (West Division) in the room of Sir Lewis Mclver, Bart., who, since his election, has accepted the stewardship of the Manor of Northstead."
Question put.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether it is necessary to press this to-day? It may be that one or two parties in the constituency desire to contest this election, and there has been no opportunity given to them. Surely, as a matter of courtesy to the other parties, this election should not be rushed in this manner. I ask that it should be delayed for at least a week in order to at least give the other parties time to consider what action should be taken.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I gave the ordinary twenty-four hours' notice which is customary in this House, and I believe even that notice is not legally necessary. Of course, if the House wishes that the Chief Whip of each Party is to give notice of the issue of a writ to the Whips of the Liberal party, the Irish party, the Labour party, and the other parties, that is a matter for consideration, but until we do come to that arrangement the hon. Member below the Gangway will agree that I have acted in the usual way, and perhaps, under the circumstances, he will withdraw his objection.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I was not complaining of lack of courtesy on the part of the Chief Whip of the Opposition, but the public outside have had no knowledge or intimation of the vacancy conveyed to them and, under the circumstances, I press my objection.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: In a matter of this kind I have known at least one occasion on which an election was improperly rushed. It was the case of a former Chief Whip of the Tory Party when he accepted the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. The very same day the writ was issued, I think for West Down, where his young hopeful came in without there being any opportunity or the slightest chance to contest the constituency. Constituencies ought not to be rushed either in favour of one party or the other, and they should have some voice in the selection.
Question put,
The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 59.

Division No. 96.]

AYES.

[2.58 p.m.

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Armitage, R.

Hall, Frederick

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Ashley, W. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Balcarres, Lord

Harrison Broadley, H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barker, Sir John

Hart-Davies, T.

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

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Pullar, Sir Robert

Beale, W. P.

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Beauchamp, E.

Heaton, John Henniker

Rees, J. D.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bennett, E. N.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Rendall, Athelstan

Brace, William

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Renton, Leslie

Branch, James

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Brigg, John

Hill, Sir Clement

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bright, J. A.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hooper, A. G.

Robinson, S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

Hunt, Rowland

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rowlands, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Laidlaw, Robert

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lambert, George

Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Seely, Colonel

Clark, George Smith

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cleland, J. W.

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

Soares, Ernest J.

Clough, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Stanier, Beville

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Toulmin, George

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

M'Arthur, Charles

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon)

M'Callum, John M.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Doughty, Sir George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Vivian, Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Micking, Major G.

Waring, Walter

Duckworth, Sir James

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Menzies, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Erskine, David C.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Evans, Sir S. T.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Younger, George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Falconer, J.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Mr. Joseph Pease.

Fenwick, Charles

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.).

Forster, Henry William

Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

Gardner, Ernest

Oddy, John James

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Abrahams, William (Rhondda)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Barnes, G. N.

Hogan, Michael

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Horniman, Emslie John

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Boulton, A. C. F.

Jenkins, J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Bowerman, C. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Snowden, P.

Byles, William Pollard

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Summerbell, T.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crean, Eugene

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Crooks, William

MacNeilll, John Gordon Swift

Watt, Henry A.

Curran, Peter Francis

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Marnham, F. J.

Weir, James Galloway

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Everett, R. Lacey

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

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

Findlay, Alexander

Myer, Horatio

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gill, A. H.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Ginnell, L.

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. T. F. Richards and Mr. C. Duncan.

Glover, Thomas

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Power, Patrick Joseph

REMOVAL OF CATHOLIC DISABILITIES BILL.
Mr. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: I beg to present a petition, which bears 738,116 signatures, against the passing into law of the Roman Catholic Disabilities Removal
1798
Bill. The prayer of the petition is as follows:—
"That the attempt now being made to tamper with the Statutory Declaration required by the Constitution to be made by the Sovereign of the Realm is dan-

1799
gerous to the succession and stability of the throne; and your petitioners humbly pray your honourable House to oppose any alteration as mischievous, unconstitutional, and fraught with great danger to the civil, political, and religious liberties of the people."
The SPEAKER: The hon. Member will bring it to the Table.
Mr. GEORGE CLARK: I have the honour of presenting a petition from the City of Belfast on a similar subject to the last petition. When I say this petition has been signed by 12,000 of the people of Belfast I think it will show the House that the Protestants in that City feel very keenly on this subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will bring it to the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  Indian Labour (British Honduras).
  Mr. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any desire has been expressed by any official or non-official bodies in British Honduras that Indian labour should be imported directly to that Colony from India?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Proposals for the introduction of labourers from India have been made in both official and unofficial circles in British Honduras, and the whole matter of Indian immigration is engaging the attention of the Immigration Committee now sitting.

  Rhodesian Affairs.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is aware that the South African Chartered Company, which has an interest in every mine in Rhodesia, has granted a body called the Rhodesia Native Labour Bureau, consisting almost exclusively of mining representatives, a monopoly to recruit all labour to Rhodesian territories despite the protests of the farmers, small mine-owners, and tributors, who are making every effort to compel the Chartered Company to abrogate this concession made to one section to the detriment of the community at large not interested in mining; whether it has been brought to the know-
  1800
  ledge of the Colonial Office that all labourers from Central Africa are met by native agents of the South African Chartered Company at Feiru, Northwestern Rhodesia, and are practically forced to sign on for the work in the mines, and that the whole labour supply is now absolutely controlled by the bureau, whose agents receive a commission on every native thus secured for the work of the mines, while natives who refuse to sign on are not permitted to enter South Rhodesia; and whether any steps will be taken by the Colonial Office to put an end to a system established by the Chartered Company in its own interest and detrimental alike to the natives, who are thereby reduced to serfdom, and to the welfare of the community at large in Rhodesia?
  Colonel SEELY: The Native Labour Bureau has been entrusted with the distribution of labour for the mines from north of the Zambesi on account of the heavy mortality among labourers finding their own way down. I may refer my hon. Friend to a reply which I gave him on this subject on 23rd November last. The distribution of labourers for farms is carried out by the Rhodesia Agricultural Union, and both these agencies are held directly responsible by the Administration, which works in concert with the Nyasaland Government. The Secretary of State recently commented on the absence of a clause in the conditions of service giving the Nyasa native a liberty of choosing his employer, and Sir William Milton, the Administrator, reported as follows: "It is not always possible to give the native recruits the choice of employers, but the practice in all cases is to ascertain from them whether they wish to work for a particular employer, and if so, and the employer selected is in want of labourers, to send them to him. The distributing agency (Labour Bureau or Agricultural Union) also makes every effort to send friends together, and in this and other respects to meet the wishes of the natives and ensure their being contented." The Secretary of State is ready to make enquiry into any specific cases of complaint, but, as at present advised, he sees no reason for pressing for the termination of the system.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: If I give him a copy of my information I am sure he will consider it.
  Colonel SEELY: I will be very glad to consider it.

  Malarial Fever Researches.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has reports regarding the steps taken for the suppression of malarial fever by the sanitary authorities in the Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, and St. Kitts-Nevis; whether these reports show that nothing of any consequence has been done in this direction by those authorities; whether the reports have been submitted to either of the Schools of Tropical Medicine in this country, and with what result?
  Colonel SEELY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Advisory Committee for the Tropical Diseases Research Fund for the year 1907 (Cd. 3992), at pages 29, 30, 31 and 32 of which he will find the reports for which he asks. These reports show, I regret to say, that nothing of any consequence had been done in the direction indicated at that time. The reports in question have, with the rest of the matter contained in the Blue Book, been brought to the notice of the Schools of Tropical Medicine, but action to be effective must needs be taken by the Governments concerned, with the co-operation of the general community.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is he aware of the steps that have been taken to secure that co-operation?
  Colonel SEELY: We will do all we can, and if my hon. Friend will put down a further question about the subject I will be glad to answer. It is the fact that in small Colonies the people do not take the same view as we do of these matters. Therefore it is difficult to get those measures carried out however beneficent they are when they are carried out.

  Hyde Park (Suggested Extension of Ride).
  Mr. REESasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he would consider the propriety of extending the ride from Hyde Park into the Kensington Gardens?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. L. Harcourt): I cannot give any encouragement to this suggestion. It would destroy the amenities of Kensington Gardens, and I am glad to think the cost would be prohibitive.
  Mr. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of keeping members of Parliament and others in good health, and the difficulty of getting sufficient exercise at present?
  Mr. L. HARCOURT: I attach more importance to keeping the children in Kensington Gardens in good health.

  Education Authorities (Repayment of Loans).
  Mr. RYLAND ADKINSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the statement of the Prime Minister on the 18th March, in answer to a deputation that the length of time permitted for the repayment of loans raised by local education authorities for school buildings was very much too short, and that he hoped they might be able, in that direction, to afford something in the nature of immediate relief, he could announce whether an extension of the terms of repayment of such loans had been decided on; and, if so, what extension?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): As I indicated in reply to a previous question, I am ready to consider any representations which a local authority may make to me on this subject in connection with any application for sanction to borrow for the erection of school buildings. I may add that the desire for an extension of periods for the repayment of these loans is by no means universal.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with his colleagues to get the loan system extended to the spending departments of the Army and Navy?

  Boarded-out Children (Medical Inspection).
  Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had had under his consideration the statement made in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law that the children boarded out beyond the union were not, as a rule, medically inspected; and whether any steps were being taken to remedy this state of things?
  Mr. BURNS: I have seen the statement referred to. Provision is made in the agreements between boards of guardians and boarding out committees for arrangements being made with a medical man for attendance in cases of sickness, and with a dentist for the care of the children's teeth. The foster parent undertakes in the case of the illness of a child boarded out with him to report the matter to the committee, the home is visited once in six weeks by a member of the committee, and a report is sent to the guardians at

  1803
  least once a quarter on the apparent bodily condition of the child. There is no special provision requiring the children to be periodically inspected by a medical man, though this is done in a good many instances, but as they attend the public elementary schools they are subject to the same medical inspection as other children attending these schools.

  Milk Bill.
  Mr. STANIERasked when the Government were going to bring in their Milk Bill?
  Mr. BURNS: I cannot fix the date at present, but I shall introduce the Bill as soon as I can.
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than twelve months ago certain clauses dealing with milk in a number of municipal Bills were withdrawn on the distinct understanding, derived from the right hon. Gentleman, that the Milk Bill would be introduced last Session, and that the right hon. Gentleman has given previous answers similar to the one he has just given; and whether, in view of the importance of the matter, he will give a definite undertaking that the Bill will be introduced at an early date?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of the facts. The delay is due to the hope which we—the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture—have that we may, by means other than a Bill, be able to remove three-fourths of the objections that would be raised in the discussion of the Milk Bill—by an Order of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. WATT: Will the Bill be drafted in such a way that it can be discussed?
  Mr. BURNS: I hope so.

  Floating Dock (Sheerness).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether it had been determined to build a large floating dock for Sheerness; and, if so, whether it would be capable of lifting a "Dreadnought"?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The matter is under consideration.

  "Gladiator" (Wreck).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would state how much it cost to raise the "Gladiator," which was wrecked off Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight; and what was the breaking-up price received for the vessel?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should be glad if the hon. Member will defer his question until to-morrow, as it has been necessary to telegraph for some details in order to supply him with the answer, and the reply has not yet been received.

  Battleships (Laying Down).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether any orders have yet been given to contractors under the special powers conferred upon the Government, to prepare for laying down four first-class battleships on 1st April, 1910, or earlier?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the hon. Member is in the negative.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the designs be prepared, so that if construction is decided upon, it can be proceeded with at once?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would rather not say anything at this moment as to designs of future battleships.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is it not necessary that the designs should be put in hand at once, if the battleships are to be constructed within a reasonable time?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I think the hon. Member had better not press me at the present moment on the subject of designs.

  Captain Bacon's Letter.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked how many officers or persons in the service of the Admiralty had access to the letter of Captain Bacon; and whether any departmental inquiry has been instituted with a view to ascertaining the circumstances which led to the document becoming public property and widely known in naval circles?
  Mr. McKENNA: The letter was received three years ago and had been totally forgotten until it was recently disinterred by a flagrant breach of confidence. As I have stated already in reply to previous questions, at this distance of time it is impossible to say precisely who saw the letter. No departmental inquiry has been instituted, as it is well known that the publication of portions of this confidential letter which was marked "Private and Secret" is the work of Sir George Armstrong, who has himself proclaimed the fact.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if, in view of the fact that large extracts from Captain Bacon's Report about his superior officers had been published, he could see his way to laying the complete text before Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: No reason is seen for the Admiralty to aggravate the flagrant breach of confidence already committed.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: In order to save further questions, would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he disapproves of the system of junior officers reporting upon their superiors, and that he will, so far as in him lies, attempt to do away with that system in future?
  Mr. McKENNA: Any system of junior officers reporting upon their seniors would of course meet with the disapprobation of the Board of Admiralty; but I have already said that the letter in question did not constitute any such report, and I do not think, therefore, that, on the strength of that letter, the hon. Gentleman should ask me to give such an assurance. If he asks for an assurance on the general policy of the Board of Admiralty, I assure him that they would not support any system of junior officers reporting upon their seniors.

  German Naval Manœuvres.
  Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty had been informed that quite recently an exercise was carried out by the German War Department, namely, that two large steamers were suddenly commandeered at Hamburg and a number of soldiers were marched on board; that these steamers at once set out across the North Sea, steamed into the River Humber, and returned again to Hamburg; and whether this manœuvre was carried out completely without being observed by any British guardship or other British authority?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on the subject referred to, and should be glad if the hon. Member will communicate to me any details with regard to it which may be within his knowledge.

  Baghdad Railway.
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could see his way, under the altered political conditions in Turkey, to endeavour to secure to this country and to British capital the construction of the Gulf section of the Baghdad Railway?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The new Turkish Government are bound by the terms of the Baghdad Railway Convention, which up to the present
  1806
  time have not been in any way modified. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the matter, but I cannot make any further statement about it.

  Taxation of Ungotten Minerals (Bore Holes).
  Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in searching for ungotten minerals by means of deep bore holes, he would terminate the liability to pay income tax on the cost of such bore holes as charged at present, when the cost was treated as a part of the cost of working?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): It is not possible to lay down any general rule as to whether the sinking of bore holes is in the nature of a capital expenditure or of an expense incurred in the earning of profits, and each case has to be dealt with by the local Commissioners on its merits. The latter kind of expenditure is alone admissible by law as a deduction in computing income tax liability.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in some manner that in the case of a bore hole, which is absolute loss after the hole has been made, income tax is not to be charged on the expenditure on that particular bore hole?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is a question of the interpretation of the present law. I can only go upon the experience of the Revenue officers in the past, and I am told that they judge purely according to the circumstances in each case. They have no clear, definite, precise rules; they must judge according to the conditions obtaining in each particular case.

  Irish Exports.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could give approximately the revenue to foreign Exchequers, through the taxation of Irish exports, during the last financial year?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no information which would enable me to answer this question.
  Mr. ROBERT DUNCAN: Would a private Member be given any facilities by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in ascertaining the amount?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not sure that it falls within my Department. But if there is any desire to get facilities of this sort, if they are available, my Department would be glad to give them.

  Sinking Fund (Unexpended Balances).
  Mr. H. H. MARKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state why the unexpended balance of Sinking Fund moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, which at the end of 1907–8 amounted to £1,132,000, amounted at the end of 1908–9 to £7,667,000?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot add anything to what I said on this subject in my Budget speech. The precise date at which money available for the reduction of debts should be applied to that purpose must depend upon the condition of the market from time to time and other considerations which vary from year to year.
  Mr. H. H. MARKSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the amounts of the unexpended balances of Sinking Fund moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners at the end of the years 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9, respectively?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In his previous question the hon. Member has stated correctly the amounts of the unexpended balances of Sinking Fund moneys in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners at the end of the year 1907–8 and 1908–9 respectively. At the end of the year 1906–7 the corresponding amount was £1,502,000.

  Sinking Fund (Purchase of Consols.)
  Mr. H. H. MARKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could state the amounts of Consols purchased for Sinking Fund purposes in the five weeks following the close of the financial years 1906–7, 1907–8, and 1908–9, respectively?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the 6th instant.
  Captain CRAIG: Is there sufficient money still in hand to keep on buying Consols during the progress of the Budget, and so to bolster up the price?

  Stamp Duty on Bonds.
  Mr. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the 10 per cent, increase in the stamp duty on bearer bonds will favour New York in competing with London for Canadian municipal corporation and other issues, and that British trade is likely to suffer seriously if, owing to the increase in the stamp duty, Canada can borrow money cheaper
  1808
  in America; and, if so, whether he will take them into consideration and modify, as far as may be, the proposals in the Budget tending towards the effect described?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter has already been brought to my notice, and is receiving my consideration.

  Distilleries in Great Britain and Ireland.
  Mr. WARINGasked how many distilleries there are in Great Britain and Ireland; what has been their total average output for the past five years; what would be the produce in money of a duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon calculated on that average annual output; what are the figures for Scotland and for the pure Highland malt distilleries in the counties north of and including Perthshire respectively; how much of the sum estimated as the produce in money of the 3s. 9d. extra duty on spirits will be paid on spirits or whisky distilled in distilleries in Scotland and in the pure Highland malt distilleries in counties north of and including Perthshire; what is the estimated decrease of output in gallons of spirits or whisky distilled in Great Britain and Ireland for this year below the average annual output for the last five years?
  Mr. WARINGalso asked what is the average amount in gallons of spirits or whisky consumed in Scotland, Ireland, and England respectively; what is the average amount of Excise duty on the same paid during the last five years in Scotland, Ireland, and England respectively; how much does this duty work out per head of the population in Scotland, England, and Ireland respectively; and how many proof gallons of whisky are lying in the Excise bonded warehouses at the various pure Highland malt distilleries in the counties of Scotland north of and including Perthshire?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am causing to be printed with the Votes the particulars, so far as they are available, asked for by my hon. Friend. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Super-Tax on Incomes over £5,000.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of an estate having a gross annual value of over £5,000 and charged with annuities, payable free of income tax, which reduce its annual value to the owner to less than £5,000, a super-tax will have to be paid by him; and, if so, on how much of the estate?
  Mr. LANE-FOXalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in case of an estate having a gross annual value of £5,000, on which income tax is collected at the source and charged with annuities, those annuities, however small, will be charged with super-tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must request the hon. Member to wait for the information asked for in his questions until after the introduction of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before we discuss the Resolution, might we know on whom the taxes are to fall which we are asked to sanction?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can simply give a general answer to that question as to others. I must proceed on some general principle, and I really cannot discuss the details of a proposition by way of question and answer. That is the rule that has been laid down by my predecessors, and I must adhere to it.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject from the Unionist party?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Nothing would give me greater pleasure.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the deputation with the same freedom as to the newspaper correspondents?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. I should be very pleased to do so—probably with greater freedom.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what principle under his Budget proposals the possessor of an income of £5,001 will pay £50 0s. 6d. more than one possessing £5,000 a year. I do not think it is any use asking further questions.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: On the principle that wherever there is graduation there must necessarily be a dividing line. On the same principle the possessor of an income of £700 enjoys an abatement, and the possessor of an income of £701 does not.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Arising out of that answer, may I ask what is the date the super-tax starts from?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is a different point. This year. [Cries of "When, when?"]
  Mr. G. H. FABER: When the Finance Bill passes into law, or from the date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget speech?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It will be on the income of the year. As the hon. Member knows, the income tax is collected late in the financial year.

  Duty on Spirits (Manufacturers' Prices).
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a minimum 10 per cent, advance has been made by manufacturers in the prices of spirit used by chemists owing to the increased duty; and whether he is considering possible concessions?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that the increase in duty is likely to enhance the cost of spirits to chemists, and I have undertaken to consider the point; but there are serious difficulties in the way of allowing a special rebate of duty in their case.

  Irish Taxation (New Duties).
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the proposed increase of taxation on whisky and tobacco will be opposed by every Member representing an Irish constituency, with the exception of Gentlemen who belong to the Administration, and is regarded as unjust and oppressive by the Irish people; and whether, having regard to the consequences likely to result in Ireland from the discontent produced by the imposition of taxation enforced on that country against the votes of her representatives, he will reconsider the expediency of persisting in placing these additional burdens on a reluctant people already admittedly taxed beyond the measure of their rateable ability?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before that question is answered, I see that it states that "the proposed increase of taxation on whisky and tobacco will be opposed by every Member representing an Irish constituency, with the exception of Gentlemen who belong to the Administration." Is it in order to suggest that the hon. Member for North Tyrone is the only Irish Member connected with the Administration who will vote against the wishes of his constituents?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The House is not bound to assume that every statement appearing in a question is correct.
  Mr. MacNEILLin putting the question said: The statement is made on my authority, and I confess that I meant that it should apply to the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the hon. Member will be so good as to refer to the speech which I delivered in this House on the 4th instant, he will see how small a part of the new taxation falls upon Ireland, and he will also find very fully stated my reasons for thinking that Ireland might fairly be expected to bear this share of the burden. I regret that I cannot see my way to modify the views which I then expressed.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Irish representatives are opposed on all sides to the imposition of this taxation as representing the Irish people? If so, will he distinguish this taxation from Robbery-under-Arms?

  Revenue Officers (Pension Work).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many pension officers have sent in complaints to the Board of Inland Revenue as to the inadequacy of the payment for pension work, and what number have returned their cheques for the same reason?
  The SECRETARY of the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Of the 2,583 pension officers who were awarded gratuities for pension work, 116 have made complaints as to the inadequacy of the gratuities. Of this number, four have returned their cheques.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that at least one pension officer has been removed because he made a complaint?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE:I have no knowledge of the fact, but I will make inquiries.
  Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these officers are afraid to make any complaint because their position is at stake?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already pointed out that 116 of them have made complaints.

  Lancashire County Education Authority (Flixton School Accommodation).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state the reasons for the delay of the Board in enforcing upon the Lancashire County Education Authority the order to provide
  1812
  school accommodation at Flixton, near Manchester, the present buildings having been condemned by the Board in 1904; and, in view of the insanitary condition and general unfitness of the premises, will he take steps at once to compel the education authority to erect new buildings?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Tre-velyan): An adverse Report upon the premises of this school was received in 1904, but the school was not then condemned. In 1907 the school was transferred to the local education authority for a period of two years pending the provision of new premises. Considerable difficulties were, however, encountered in securing a site, but my right hon. Friend is now informed by the local authority that they anticipate an early settlement will be arrived at, and he will see that there is no avoidable delay in providing the new school.

  Nottingham Elementary Schools.
  Mr. LEIF JONES (for Mr. Richardson)asked the President of the Board of Education if he can state what size, the classes run to in the elementary schools in the city of Nottingham?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: My right hon. Friend is not able to give precise information on this point, but he is aware that the number of classes in Nottingham public elementary schools, especially in council schools, containing more than 60 scholars on the roll is very considerable. The question of school accommodation in this area is a serious one, and the Board have for some time past been pressing the authority to provide additional accommodation.

  Robert Simpson (Conviction).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether since the trial and conviction of Robert Simpson, sentenced to five years' imprisonment in 1907, new evidence has been brought to light, first as to the un-trustworthiness of the handwriting expert Gurrin's testimony, as shown by the cases of Beck and Edalji, and second as to the allegation that the actions raised against the newspapers were raised contrary to the instructions of Simpson; and, if so, whether, in the circumstances, he will reduce the sentence?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): No new evidence has been brought to light in connection with this case. The conviction of the accused did not rest upon expert evidence given as to his handwriting,

  1813
  and no evidence was adduced at the trial or has since been disclosed tending to show that the actions raised against the newspapers were raised contrary to the instructions of the accused.

  Dairies (Scotland).
  Mr. GULLANDasked the Lord Advocate if he can now say when the Bill dealing with dairies in Scotland will be introduced?
  Mr. URE: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to put this question down for this day week.

  Junior Student System (Scotland).
  Mr. GULLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that since the adoption of the junior student system in Scotland a large number of young people of ages from 14 to 16 have to live away from home to attend instruction at the centres; whether the school boards managing these centres undertake any supervision of these young people out of school hours or of the premises in which they live; and whether the Scotch Education Department will issue a circular drawing the attention of school boards to this matter or make it a condition of grant that the junior students should reside in hostels or registered lodgings?
  Mr. URE: Under the regulations for the training of teachers both the secondary education committees who nominate the junior students and the managers and teachers of the centres where they receive their instruction have certain responsibilities as regards their due supervision. The Department have no reason to suppose that the bodies named are not fully alive to their responsibilities in the matter, but they have already drawn the attention of the secondary education committees to their powers under the Act, and the whole matter is receiving their careful attention, with a view to such further action as may be necessary.

  Court of Session (Congestion).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate if he will grant a Return of the number of cases heard in the first division of the Court of Session during the last 12 months, showing in how many of these more than three months elapsed between the dates of hearing the cases and the dates of judgments?
  Mr. URE: I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by granting such a return as my hon. Friend asks. The
  1814
  mere length of time which elapses between the date of hearing and of judgment in cases the length, difficulty and importance of which are not given, would be of no value.
  Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that congestion does not exist, and that it does not delay the judges?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir; there was no such suggestion.

  House Letting (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Lord Advocate if he can state when the second reading of the House Letting (Scotland) Bill will be taken?
  Mr. URE: I am not yet in a position to give any undertaking as to the date of second reading.

  Usk Quarter Sessions Jury.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to a case recently before the Usk Quarter Sessions in which the chairman discharged the jury owing to its having been entertained at luncheon by the prosecutors in the case; and whether he proposes to direct any proceedings in respect of the matter?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): The question only appeared on the Paper to-day. I have caused inquiries to be made, but I have not yet received an answer.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will put the question again on Monday.

  Police Forces (Weekly Rest Day).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAV1ESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had under consideration the Report of the Committee on Police Forces (Weekly Rest Day); and whether he will take immediate steps to give effect to their recommendation that one day's rest in seven be given to the men in the Metropolitan and City police forces?
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Home Secretary whether he can inform the House what steps he is taking to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee with a view to providing a weekly rest-day for the members of the police force?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I regret that I can add nothing at present to the reply which I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for the

  1815
  Holborn Division, to the effect that the Report had only recently been issued, and would receive the Secretary of State's consideration as soon as possible.
  Mr. REMNANT: Will the Home Secretary be able to consider this in the course of the next week or 10 days?
  Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member is aware, the Secretary of State for the Home Department is at present indisposed. I am afraid it will take some little time before this matter is settled.

  Colne Field Farm, Hunts.
  Mr. BOULTONasked what steps the Board propose taking to reopen the contract for the purchase of the Colne Field Farm, in Hunts, now that Mr. Cheney, the commissioner, has reported that there are no apparent reasons why the purchase should not be completed?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The Board are in communication with the county council on this matter, but they are not in a position as yet to make any statement respecting it.

  Poor Law (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether there is any intention of legislating, during the present Parliament, on the poor law in Ireland in the sense of the recommendations of the recent Commissions; and, if so, can he say the probable date when a measure on that subject may be introduced?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Preparations are being made with a view to legislation on the subject. But such legislation would occupy so much time that I see no prospect of its being introduced this Session.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether, if the Government and the Nationalist party had supported my Bill last year, the whole matter would not now have been dealt with?
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say is there any prospect of its being introduced next Session?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope there is a prospect.
  Mr. LONSDALE: In view of the necessity for some measure of poor law reform in Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for the Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a question that should not be addressed to me.

  House Letting and Rating (Scotland).
  Mr. CLELANDasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to indicate a date on which the second reading of the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not able to name any date before Whitsuntide, but hope that an opportunity may be found soon after the Whitsuntide Recess.

  Whitsuntide Recess.
  Sir FRANCIS POWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to make any statement as to the Whitsuntide Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of our securing the first reading of the Finance Bill by Wednesday, the 26th inst., I should suggest that, at its rising on Thursday, the 27th inst., the House should adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess until the following Thursday.

  Imperial Press Conference.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Prime Minister whether the members of the Imperial Press Conference will be entertained in England at the public expense; whether he can state what authority was responsible for the selection of the representatives of the Colonial and Indian Press; and whether the Government is satisfied that all shades of political and economic opinion are represented by the delegates?
  The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government propose to invite the delegates to the Imperial Press Conference to be their guests at a dinner next month, but no part of the expenses incident to the Conference will be paid out of the public funds. I understand that the arrangements for the Conference have been carried out by a representative committee of British journalists and newspaper proprietors, and I have no reason to suppose—though I should add that the matter is one which does not come within the cognisance of the Government—hat the various shades of political and economic opinion will not be represented by the delegates.

  Oriental Languages (Treasury Committee).
  Mr. REESasked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Treasury Committee on Oriental Languages will be presented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Report is now under the consideration of various Departments, and will be presented to Parliament when a decision on its recommendations is arrived at.

  Austrian Battleships.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether the intention expressed by the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Marine to build battleships of the most modern type is a new fact in the naval situation which makes it necessary for His Majesty's Government to lay down the four conditional battleships immediately?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the statements that have already been made.

  Imperial Naval Defence (Colonial Conference).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether the Colonial Governments have accepted the invitation to a conference on the subject of Imperial naval defence; and at what date will the conference be held?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Governments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Transvaal have indicated their acceptance. Communications are still passing as to the date which will be convenient to the several Governments.

  Small Holdings Act (Huntingdonshire).
  Mr. BOULTONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the Huntingdonshire County Council has now purchased 1,200 acres of land in the county, at a cost of over £50,000, and that the preliminary expenses in connection with this purchase under the Small Holdings Act amount to over £1,000; and if he will say what steps are being taken to repay these expenses, or any part of them, to the county council out of the fund set apart by Government, under the Act of 1907, for the purpose?
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY: We have not yet received any claim from the county council for the repayment of the expenses to which my hon. Friend refers. When it is received it will at once be dealt with.
  Mr. BOULTONasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he is aware that J. W. Allpress, of Broughton, Huntingdonshire, applied to the county council for a small holding of about 10 acres; that the application was refused; and that an ap-
  1818
  plication was then made by Allpress to the Board of Agriculture and refused; if he will state the reason why this man, who has sufficient experience and capital, should be refused a small holding; if he is aware that Allpress's mother has arranged to let him the five acres of land belonging to her, and for this purpose has given notice to quit to a number of allotment holders; and if he will take steps to provide a small holding for this man, and thus prevent the disturbance of the allotment holders?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are making further inquiry into this matter, and on receipt of full information respecting it I shall be glad to communicate with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. BOULTON: Has not a communication to the Board of Agriculture been already made by this man upon the point?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As I have already told my hon. Friend, we have not yet received full information. When we do I will communicate with him.

  Exportation of British Horses.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if he is aware that a number of old worn-out British horses are despatched from this country to Antwerp, and that at the best of times their condition is deplorable; that in fine weather the journey is made in about 23 hours and the food for the journey is not sufficient, and in stormy weather the animals are not only tortured by the tossing about to which they are subjected, but from the lengthening of the voyage by two or three days they are starved by the shortage of food, and that on their arrival at Belgium they suffer the worst of tortures; whether he is aware that at times there are as many as 20 such animals dead and dying On the quays at Antwerp; that they are there examined, and at nightfall are very often without food, but are driven off in batches of 10, 15, 20, or more to abattoirs at Ghent, Tormonde, St. Nicolas, and even Brussels, a distance of 30 miles; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The trade in the exportation of horses to Antwerp and other foreign ports has been regulated since 1898 by our Exportation of Horses Order, a copy of which I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend. It prohibits the export of horses that are unfit to travel, it requires vessels in this trade to be properly fitted for the

  1819
  purpose, and it provides for the proper care and feeding of horses on the voyage. The administration of the Order is carried out in this country by the local authorities concerned, and our inspectors make frequent voyages to supervise the traffic; on arrival the horses are landed and moved under the superintendence of officials of the Belgian Government. I am not able to accept as correct my hon. Friend's description of this trade, but if he will be good enough to furnish me with any information in his possession I shall be glad to have inquiry made at once.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation upon the matter?
  Captain FABER: Could not the officials of the Board of Agriculture refuse to allow those horses to be conveyed away, as the animals are not in a fit state for the journey, and are in a worn-out condition?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must have notice of that.
  Mr. W. THORNE: If the Belgian buyers do not enter into securities to have the animals properly treated, will the Board of Agriculture order them to be killed at this side?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I must have notice.

  Barley Crop (Scotland).
  Mr. WARINGasked the hon. Member for South Somerset what acreage was under barley crop last year in the counties of Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Boss, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney, Aberdeen, Kincardine, Forfar, and Perth; what was the number of bushels of barley produced last year in those counties; and whether he is aware that the whisky distillers in those counties purchased more than half the barley produced there?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: This is a very long answer. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Feeding Stuffs.
  Mr. WARINGasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether he is aware that draff, a bye-product of pure Highland malt distilling, is an important feeding-stuff for cattle and an effective milk-producing food for dairy cows; and can he state how many million bushels of draff were produced last year, and whether all was used as food-stuff for cattle and dairy cows?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is the case, of course, that draff is extensively used as food for cattle, but we have no information as to the amount produced or consumed in the manner mentioned.
  Mr. LANE-FOXasked the hon. Member for South Somerset whether limited companies have pleaded non-liability for prosecution under the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Act and the Food and Drugs Act, respectively; and whether such plea has been allowed by the Courts?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are not aware of any such case.

  Small Holdings Act (Lancashire and Wiltshire).
  Mr. HEDGESasked the hon. Member for South Somerset if all counties in a condition similar to, or more backward than, Lancashire and Wiltshire in respect to the acquisition of land under the Small Holdings Act in proportion to the demand will receive the advantage of the appointment of a special Commissioner?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to refer him to the reply I gave on the 6th inst. in answer to a question on the same subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South Oxfordshire. I may add, however, that our permanent staff now comprises 10 commissioners, assistant commissioners, and inspectors, all of whom are in constant and continuous communication with county councils as to the measures to be taken for putting the Act in operation. It is only in exceptional cases that the services of special commissioners are required.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whereas the number of approved applicants in Wilts and Oxfordshire is precisely the same, the Wilts county council have obtained for small holdings more than twice as much land as the Oxfordshire County Council; and can he say why a special commissioner is sent to Wilts and not to Oxfordshire?
  Mr. J. ROWLANDS: May I ask the hon. Member whether it is the case that Wiltshire and Lancashire are worse than those of the Southern counties, and will he take into consideration the position of these two counties?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Of course, we will take into consideration any complaints with regard to any particular county.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my hon. Friend aware that of all the county councils in

  1821
  England and Wales, 50 councils have obtained a smaller amount than the Wilts county council, only 10 have obtained more; and will he still say that Wilts is the most backward of the two counties?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No; I am not aware of it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information instead of asking for it.

  Post Office Contractors.
  Sir JOSEPH LEESEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has observed that Messrs. Hobart, Bird, and Company, cycle manufacturers, of Coventry, advertise themselves as contractors to the home postal authorities; what contract the company now holds with the Post Office; and what has been the number of cycles supplied to the Post Office by the company during the past ten years?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): Messrs. Hobart, Bird, and Company hold no contract with the Post Office, and I have informed them that they have no right to describe themselves as contractors to the Home postal authorities. The only cycle they have supplied to the Post Office is one tricycle, which was supplied by them to the Post Office seven years ago.

  Post Office Night Messengers.
  Mr. NOLANasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the terms of the official notice issued at Newcastle-on-Tyne and the offices in Scotland, ordering the adult night messengers to clean cycles, in which it is stated that they must perform the work of cleaning cycles in as efficient a manner as practical cycle mechanics or incur the penalty of being reported as inefficient; that they must enter all cycles cleaned in ledgers; and on Saturday and Sunday nights, when in some offices only one man is on duty, he must clean as many as 18 cycles, besides delivering all telegrams and express letters; if he will have the terms of these notices modified so that no messenger should be compelled to do any clerical work in connection with cycle cleaning; and that in cases such as Saturday and Sunday nights, when only one man is on duty, the delivery of telegrams should constitute his sole night's work?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Combined Working of Railway Companies (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when he constitues the proposed Committee to inquire into the subject of the combined workings of railway companies, a representative of the agricultural interests will be placed upon it?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Winston Churchill): The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind.

  Government Contractor (Fair Wages Clause).
  Mr. SUMMERBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the firm of Messrs. J. B. Pearse and Company, contractors for the supply of clothing for His Majesty's Customs and the Board of Trade, who are working their employés from 8 a.m. till 9 p.m. five days in the week, and from 8 a.m. till 4 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, are paying their employes in accordance with the terms of the fair wage clause for the normal working hours customary in the trade, or whether the wages paid for the total hours worked do not exceed the rate customary in the district for the nominal working hours, and, if so, whether this is an infringement of the fair wage clause; and whether he will make representations to the firm in question with a view to a reduction of the excessive overtime stated?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The contractors assure me that they are paying their employés, most of whom are engaged on piece work, at the rates current in the district. A fixed extra allowance over and above the usual rates is given to those men who work on Sundays, but I do not see how this can be an infringement of the fair wage clause. The contractors state that the overtime of one hour for five days a week is necessary at present, but they expect that the Sunday work will cease shortly.

  United States Tariffs.
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Boad of Trarde if he will inform the House whether the tariffs of the United States are subject to annual alterations, or whether it is only on the election of a new President that the trades of that country are in suspense as to what may be the new arrangement of import duties?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The power of the United States Congress to revise the

  1823
  Customs Tariff is clearly not limited to annual revisions nor to revisions on the election of new Presidents. The present tariff has been in force since 1897, and the three previous tariffs were enacted in 1894, 1890, and 1883 respectively.

  National School Drill (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the children of poor parents attending National schools in Ireland are compelled to submit to military drill on the public roads and thoroughfares; if so, whether the consent of the parents has been asked to this practice; and whether the National Board consider the wishes of the parents in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that physical drill is one of the ordinary school subjects in National schools. Children attending National schools are not compelled to submit to military drill on the public roads and thoroughfares.

  Land Purchase, Ireland.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether separate accounts are kept of costs incurred in the recovery of arrears of purchase annuities and in the recovery for ex-landlords of arrears of interest in lieu of rent respectively; whether the ex-landlords bear all the costs in the latter class of cases; and whether they make any payment to the State for collecting this money for them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Land Commission inform me that each case in which proceedings are taken for the recovery of arrears is dealt with separately. The costs depend upon the nature and result of the proceedings. The 35th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, provides that interest in lieu of rent shall be collected and recoverable by the Land Commission in like manner as if it was an instalment of a purchase annuity. The ex-landlords are not parties to the proceedings, and neither bear nor recover costs in such cases. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what causes the delay in the purchase and distribution of the Featherston ranch at Milltown, Westmeath; what point the pro-
  1824
  ceedings have reached; and by what date is it now expected that the land will be available for distribution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner deferred acceptance of the Commissioners' offer to purchase this estate pending the decision of a question of law as to the rate of bonus payable. This has now been decided by the Judicial Commissioner, and when the offer is accepted the purchase of the property will' be proceeded with.

  Ruthven Estate, Aughavas, County Leitrim.
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state when Thomas Fitzpatrick, an evicted tenant of Lisgillock, Aughavas, county Leitrim, on the Ruthven estate, will be reinstated in his farm; and whether, as his reinstatement grant has been recommended by the inspector and there is no person in occupation of the farm at present, the reinstatement will take place soon, as Fitzpatrick and his family are in a state of destitution?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners hope to be able to arrange for the reinstatement of Fitzpatrick at an early date.

  Marsham Estate, Stroke, County Leitrim.
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTH: Can the Chief Secretary state when will the evicted tenants, who have been reinstated at Stroke, Drumreilly, Ballinamore, county Leitrim, on the Marsham estate, get the reinstatement grants which have been allotted to them; and why it was -that their solicitor, who wrote to the Estates Commissioners on their behalf, got no reply whatever from the Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have entrusted the expenditure of the grants which they have sanctioned to one of their inspectors, who is dealing with the matter. They are unable, from the particulars given, to trace the letter referred to in the last paragraph of the question.

  Mr. G. White's Estate, Mohill, County Leitrim.
  Mr. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can state whether Francis M'Vally, an evicted' tenant at Cattan, county Leitrim, on the estate of Mr. George White, Cloone Grange, Mohill, has been permitted to

  1825
  sign his purchase agreement, or has it been signed by Mitchell, who is in occupation of the farm, as he promised in January, 1908, when the agreements were being signed, to surrender the farm in M'Vally's favour, provided he got compensation; and whether such compensation will be paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the owner of the estate has lodged with them a purchase agreement signed by Catherine Mitchell, as tenant of the holding in question. The Commissioners will direct one of their inspectors to make inquiries as to the terms upon which it may be possible to effect the reinstatement of the former tenant of the holding.

  Poor Law Legislation (Ireland).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he intends during the present Session of Parliament to introduce legislation dealing with the reform of poor law administration in Ireland, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission which have been recently published?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to a question on the same subject asked by the hon. Member for North West-meath.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman appeal to the Prime Minister to allow my Bill to be revived this year, and so satisfy all classes in Ireland?

  Resident Magistrates (Mr. Herbert Walker).
  Mr. STANIER: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state on what grounds Mr. Herbert Walker was selected above the other candidates on the Government list for the appointment of resident magistrate; on what date his application for the appointment was received; was his application supported by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; did the Lord Lieutenant consult the Lord Chancellor on the subject before making the appointment; and was any inquiry made before the appointment into Mr. Walker's knowledge of Irish law or practice; and, if so, by whom?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The office of resident magistrate is not one of those awarded by competition, and the Lord Lieutenant satisfied himself that Mr. Walker possessed the necessary qualifications. The date of
  1826
  Mr. Walker's application was 30th January, 1909. The Lord Chancellor did not interfere in the matter, and he was not consulted by His Excellency. Before the appointment all the usual and necessary inquiries were made as to the candidate's fitness for the post.
  Mr. STANIER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the Mr. Walker in question is the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have always understood that to be the case.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask the Chief Secretary whether it is a fact that Mr. Walker was a failure in China?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware of it.

  National School Inspectors (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any means whereby inspectors of National schools in Ireland who happen to be unjustly treated by the Resident Commissioner can obtain redress, in view of the fact that if they send their complaints to the office he refuses to allow the secretaries, who are his subordinates, to bring them before the Board, and if complaints are made directly to any individual Commissioner a breach of the Regulations is said to be committed; and whether he is aware that if questions are asked in this House the Resident Commissioner and his subordinates endeavour to find out who is the author, so that he may be still further punished?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for the College Green Division on the 5th instant.

  Land Purchase (Jacob Estate).
  Mr. FFRENCH: Is the Chief Secretary for Ireland aware that the tenants on the Jacob estate agreed to purchase their holdings, and that the agreements were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in the months of March and April, 1908, the purchase money being £4,270; and that, after the interest on the purchase money had been twice paid, the Estates Commissioners have refused to declare the lands an estate; and will he communicate with the Estates Commissioners with a view to allowing the sale to go on?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in this case the

  1827
  owner proposed to sell only portion of his estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion, refused to declare such portion to be an estate for the purposes of the Act. The interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants was collected pursuant to section 35 of the Act of 1896, and by the terms of that section the amount collected is applicable as a payment on account of rent. I have no power to make representations to the Commissioners as regards the exercise of their discretion in such cases.

  Irish Intermediate Board (New Rules).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the new rules proposed by the Intermediate Board for 1910 have yet been presented to Parliament; and, if so, whether they will be printed and be made available for purchase by the general public?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The rules and programme for the intermediate examinations of 1910 were presented on the 3rd instant, and were ordered to be printed on the 4th instant. They are now in the printers' hands, and will shortly be issued to the public.

  Irish Barracks (Painting Contract).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any complaint was made as to the manner in which the painting contract was carried out in Ireland last year at the military barracks in that country, and, if such complaint was made, was any inquiry held; if so, what has been the result; and if he will state the name and. place of business of the contractor?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member is evidently alluding to the complaint which was received in connection with the painting contract at Limerick Barracks. The matter was thoroughly investigated, and
  as a result it has been decided that the contractor shall not in future hold Army contracts.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the contractor?
  Mr HALDANE: No, Sir.
  Mr. JOYCE: Shall I give him the name across the floor of the House?

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Maurice Healy, esquire, for the borough of Cork.

  PRESENTATIONS OF BILLS.
  The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
  Mr. BEALE—Post Office (Lotteries and Obscene Matter).—Bill to confer on the Postmaster-General further powers to prevent the use of the Post for the conduct of Lotteries or traffic in Obscene Matter. (To be read a second time on 18th May.)
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON—Telegraph (Arbitration).—Bill to give further powers to the Railway and Canal Commission to determine differences with respect to Tele graphs. (To be read a second time on 17th May.)

SUSPENSION OF ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS).
  Motion made and Question proposed:
  "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes. 106.

  Division No. 97.]

  AYES.

  [3.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brigg, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Bright, J. A.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Beale, W. p

  Brocklehurst, W B.

  Agnew, George William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)'

  Alden, Percy

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Armitage, R.

  Bertram, Julius

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Bethel, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Channing, Sir Frederick Allston

  Barker, Sir John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brace, William

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Robinson, S.

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Cooper, G. J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lambert, George

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cox, Harold

  Lamont, Norman

  Rowlands, J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lehmann, R C

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Sears, J. E.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Colonel

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Shaw, Sir Charles E. Stafford)

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Erskine, David C.

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Summerbell, T.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Marnham, F. J.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Falconer, J.

  Massie, J.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Menzies, Walter

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Moiteno, Percy Alport

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Mond, A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tomkinson, James

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Montague, Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, George

  Gill, A. H.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, F. W.

  Gocch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Morse, L. L.

  Vivian, Henry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Walton, Joseph

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Myer, Moratio

  Waring, Walter

  Gulland, John W.

  Napier, T. B.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hall, Frederick

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pollard, Dr. G. H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Henry, Charles S.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H

  Pullar, Sir Robert

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

  Hodge, John

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Hooper, A. G.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Winfrey, R.

  Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Hudson, Walter

  Rees, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank

  Hyde, Clarendon G.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Richards, Thomas, W. Monmouth)

  Jenkins, J.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Clark, George Smith

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brotherton, Edwin Allen

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Ashley, W. W.

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

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael High Hicks

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  1830

  1831

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

  Hunt, Rowland

  Renton, Leslie

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Duffy, William J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Seddon, J.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Snowden, P.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanier, Beville

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Starkey, John R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, J.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Newdegate, F. A. N.

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

  Healy, Maurice, (Cork)

  Oddy, John James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Younger, George

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Hermon-Lodge, Sir Robert

  Percy, Earl

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hills, J. W.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

WAYS AND MEANS.
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

    CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
    [Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
    [IN THE COMMITTEE.]
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)moved:—

    LAND VALUE DUTIES.
    "That on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the following duties be charged in respect of land:

    (i) A duty on any increment value accruing after the said date at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, the duty to be taken on the occasion of the transfer, or the grant of a lease of the land, and on the occasion of the death of any person where the property passing on his death comprises any such land, and in the case of land belonging to a body corporate or unincorporate on such periodical occasions as Parliament may determine;

    (ii) A duty on the value of any benefit accruing to a lessor by reason of the determination of a lease at the rate of one pound for every ten pounds of that value;

    (iii) An annual duty in respect of the capital site value of land which has not been developed for building or
    1832
    other purposes, and the capital value of ungotten minerals, at the rate of one halfpenny for every pound of that value."

    Mr. HAROLD COX: The supporters of this Resolution are in the habit of repeating, with unnecessary iteration, that land is different from other things. Who ever challenged that proposition? Of course, land is different from other things. It is necessary for human life, and it is fixed in a geographical position. Those conditions make it different from other things; and these conditions make it necessary that property in land should be treated differently from other things. It always has been so treated, and always will be to the world's end. There is this fundamental difference: that if a man owns a piece of land, he is always liable to the risk of that piece of land being taken away from him if the public require it. If he owns a picture or a pair of trousers he is not liable in that way.
    Mr. J. D. REES: What about Mr. O'Brien?
    Mr. HAROLD COX: My hon. Friend reminds me that there are occasions on which a man may have his trousers removed and another pair substituted. I hope there is no danger that that will occur to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But passing from that, it does seem to me that I have named the fundamental difference between land and other forms of property. The State has a supreme interest in the

    1833
    ownership of land, and may resume, therefore, possession of a piece of land when it is required in the public interest. But does that underlying and perpetual distinction between land and other forms of property justify a special tax on incomes derived from landed property? Land, with all its advantages and disadvantages, produces a certain income. Why should that income be taxed at a much higher rate than income derived from other forms of property? That is a proposition which the occupants of the Treasury Bench have not, so far as I know, attempted to justify.
    Let me take a simple illustration. A workman or artisan saves money. He may invest his savings either in shares in a cotton mill or in cottage property. Why should a man who has invested his savings in cottage property pay a higher tax than the man who has put his money into a cotton mill? Take another common case. A man hesitates between investing his money in a safe investment like Consols or in ground rents. At present both those investments are regarded as safe. I will ask why should a man who chooses to invest in ground rents rather than in Consols be taxed at a higher rate? That again is a proposition which, I submit, right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have not yet attempted to answer. All they have done is to tell us, and I am not sure whether I am quoting their words or the words of some hon. Gentleman opposite, that the ownership of land is a burden on the community, that the landowner draws his rent from the wealth of the community, and that, therefore, he is a burden upon it. But does not that statement equally apply to a man who draws his dividends from Consols? Is not a man who receives his income from Consols just as much a burden upon the community? Consols represent money gone long ago—thrown away in gunpowder, and therefore he is a burden upon the community every bit as much as if not more so than the land-owner, for whom the community is taxed to provide an income. If we are to tax the land-owner because it is contended he is taking wealth out of the community, for the very same reason you must tax the man who has invested his money in Consols, and who is drawing his income every year from the taxation of the country. We have not got to that yet, but perhaps the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackburn that that should be made a feature of next year's Budget will be followed. Now, the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
    1834
    cellor of the Exchequer, in attempting to justify this proposal for the differential taxation of land, for that is what this scheme amounts to, appealed to the authority of John Stuart Mill, who, he said, had been in favour of taxing unearned increment. I think Mill made a good many mistakes, and evidently the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, or I imagine he would accept the authority of Mill with regard to the graduation of income tax, a thing to which Mill strongly objected. Personally, I think Mill was wrong on both points, and if I am challenged I will add that in my opinion he is one of the most overrated authorities on political economy who has ever been quoted. I have never been able to understand why he should have obtained during his lifetime such an extraordinary reputation, and still less can I understand why that reputation continues to be preserved. Mill made this tremendous mistake: He did not realise that if we are going to tax the unearned increment we shall be confiscating part of the present value, a thing which he denounced as unjust. Mill's proposition was that under no circumstances must you deprive the land-owner of the present value of his land. The present value of any piece of land depends on the anticipation of its future value. Every man in buying land takes into account the chance that it may fall in value as well as the hope that it may rise. He will gain if it rises in value, but he runs a risk of a depreciation in its present value, and the Government by adopting this policy will, in other words, be confiscating part of the present value. Another point Mill clearly overlooked was that we should have to supplement our taxation on unearned increment by compensation for unearned decrement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned what happened at Woolwich, where he said that, owing to the Government setting up an arsenal there, the value of land had risen in the neighbourhood. But supposing the number of people employed in the Arsenal was reduced, would not that bring about a reduction in the value of land in the neighbourhood, and if it did, what would happen? Were the landowners to be compensated because they were deprived of the opportunity of letting their land? [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Of course, I do not suggest that that should be done. I want to leave things alone.
    But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade went a little

    1835
    further in attempting to justify taxation on unearned increment^ and he used this curious comparison. He said that unearned increment derived from land arose from a wholly sterile operation, whereas an investment in a block of shares was not withholding something from a community, but was stimulating by judicious and economical investment. Surely there is confusion with regard to that in the mind of my right hon. Friend. If, with all respect, I may be allowed to say so, he has confused the process of holding up with the process of realisation. A man does not derive anything by holding back his land. He derives his income by realising the value of it: the holding back is a purely negative process, and he gets no more out of it than a man gets by holding back the value of any investment. In each case he only gets a profit on realisation. It is the demand of the market at the time of realisation that creates the wealth. As a matter of fact land-owners do not get wealthy by holding back the land for a long time. Fortunes have been made no doubt in land speculation, but they have been made by buying land intelligently in the neighbourhood of large towns, developing it as rapidly as possible, and selling it as quickly as purchasers can be found. That is how men make money in land. The reason why they cannot make money by holding back the land is simply because they are losing more than they gain in the compound interest which they forego, and I venture to say that any man who buys land with the idea of a rise may find at the end of 20 or 25 years he would have been better off if he had invested his money in Consols, and reinvested the interest every year. If that is not so, why is it that everybody does not invest in land? If it is a certain yield of magnificent profit why do not men sell all their other investments and put all their money into land? Now, it is argued that there is some particular vice in holding back land. It is argued that you are holding back something which the whole community wants. But what is held back? It is a particular piece of land. What is the loss to the community? It amounts to this, it simply has to use some other piece of land. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Do hon. Members suggest that the whole of the land of this country is held in one hand, or that one person can hold back all the land? We know perfectly well that if one man holds back his land, that is the opportunity for another land-owner to sell
    1836
    his. That is what is happening. [An HON. MEMBER: "He sells it at a higher price."] No doubt, but do not other persons in other forms of business hold back property for a higher price? Have people never heard of cotton being held back, of Lancashire mill-owners buying cotton and waiting for a favourable turn in the market before selling it? Which is the greater evil, the holding back of a particular piece of land, or the holding back of a large supply of cotton which may bring great industries to a standstill? Has not labour ever held back for a higher price? Sometimes, no doubt, working men are perfectly justified in holding back their labour, because the price offered for it is unfair; but there are other occasions when even their own leaders condemn them for doing this, and when they deliberately hold back their labour and so inflict untold misery, not only on their own families, but on thousands of people outside.
    Another great difficulty is that there are other forms of unearned increment besides the unearned increment on land. The Prime Minister dealt with this point the other day, but I do not think he completely grasped the arguments of those who are opposed to this selection of the unearned increment on land for penal taxation. He spoke as though the only other instances of unearned increment were the increment on old wines and pictures. I readily rule those out of consideration, but that is not the point after all. Our point is that the whole community gets unearned increment by the advance in wealth of the whole country. Let me take an illustration. Suppose a doctor settles down in a new country—in some little Colonial town, where there is a very small population. He has to work pretty hard, and he cannot get much money in, but as the town grows in population he finds he gets more patients, and that they can afford to pay higher fees. That is increment which is realised by the growth of the general community, and that is the sort of thing which is going on in other professions. The hon. Member for Dulwich perhaps put the matter in a better way when he asked what is the prairie value of the Lord Advocate on the top of a Scotch mountain? Now I should like to take up a point raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil with regard to agricultural labour. I contend that exactly the same cause which has raised the value of property of urban land-owners has raised the wages of the agricultural labourer; it is the trend towards the towns which has made land

    1837
    dear in the towns, and has simultaneously made labour dear in the country. The labourer used, 50 years ago, to be able to find no other means of employment except on a farm, and then at what rate of wages the farmer would offer him. Now he can get employment on railways, and in the big towns, and consequently unless the farmer will offer him a higher wage he will drift off into the big towns. But he does not work in the big town any harder than he did 50 years ago. He works less hard, and he has no responsibility for any of the great improvements which have made his lot easier in life. He has not joined trade unions, in order to try to co-operate with his fellows to improve his lot. He has simply waited for the wealth of the community to bring about an improvement, relatively, in his lot. What does the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil say with regard to that. I took his words down, and I am sorry they are not reported in the Official Report to-day. [See continuation of Official Report, 11 th May.] He said: "The labourer is producing his share of the nation's wealth, whereas the landlord quâ landlord does nothing." Quite so, but what is the conclusion he draws from that? Why, that since the labourer is doing his work and the landlord quâ landlord has done nothing, that the landlord has no right to anything at all. [Cheers.] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite cheer that, that is their doctrine, and it is also the doctrine of the Treasury Bench. I contend that even they are wrong, because they have forgotten that a good many landowners are very poor people, and they have forgotten also, what I think ought to be their ideal, that we should so organise taxation that we should tax the wealth of the rich while exempting the necessities of the poor.
    I want to come to a practical point. [Ironical cheers.] Surely it is desirable to deal with theoretical as well as practical points. The proposal of the Government is, as far as I understand it, that a valuation of all the land in the country should be made at once, to-day or to-morrow, or as soon as the Bill passes. That is on the assumption, that if it is found that any increment accrues which is not due to the work of the land-owner himself, that is to be specially taxed. I think the Government in making that proposal, must have acted upon the hypothesis that land is always rising in value, beginning with the year one, and going on through the other years, but as a matter of fact
    1838
    land fluctuates up and down like everything else, and I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken into account the fact that in London, at any rate, a great deal of land is very much depressed, and is worth much less now than it was 20 years ago. Take the case of a piece of land bought 20 years ago for £100,000. It is worth to-day perhaps £80,000; 10 years hence, when it comes into taxation, it will be revalued, and valued perhaps at £90,000. The actual purchaser has made a loss of £10,000, but "you are going to tax him upon the difference between £80,000 and £90,000, as if he had made a profit, and that is what you call taxing unearned increment. Then in regard to the costs of this valuation. It is important to bear in mind that the whole land of the country must be valued, not only merely urban land, but the whole of the land of the country, including what is called agricultural land, must be valued, because we do not know how soon it will be urban land, and be liable to the new tax. Moreover, it must be valued on an entirely new principle. I am not surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unable the other day to give us any estimate of what this valuation was going to cost. The right hon. Gentleman is going to take £50,000 this year for it, but he refused, wisely, I think, to say what his estimate of the cost will be. It seems to me that it is a most extraordinary proposal to commit this country to an absolutely unknown expenditure for the valuation of all the land in England—an expenditure which may be hundreds of thousands of pounds, but which is more likely to be' millions. ["Oh."] I say deliberately it is more likely to be millions, because it is difficult enough and expensive enough to value property to-day as it is—to value ordinary property sent to the valuer for him to value the thing as it is; but the new problem which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to set his valuers is not to value the land as it is, but as it is not. He is going to strip the land, in imagination, of everything that human labour has done upon it, and then, when he has reduced it to some vague thing, called prairie value, he is going to ask a valuer to put a price upon it. How can any valuer do that, and how can you check the valuer? Now valuers are checked by the consciousness that the things they are valuing come occasionally into the market, and therefore the valuers guess is checked by any changes in the market. There is that constant check upon the valuer now, but that check will be

    1839
    withdrawn, because the particular thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to value does not exist in reality at all—it is a figment of his brain.
    How are the costs of the land-owner to be met? Because he will have to fight these cases, and quite rightly. He is justified, when he is asked to pay a new tax, in inquiring on what basis he is going to pay the tax. But that is not the difficulty. The scheme provides that the landlord is not to pay taxes upon the value of the improvements which he has made himself. How is that value to be ascertained? That is almost as difficult as the primary problem, because the landlord will have an entirely different conception of the value of the improvements he has made to what the Treasury officials will have. They will be wanting to write it down and he will be wanting to write it up, and we shall have not only numerous cases for official valuations and private valuations, but, in addition, an absolutely stupendous expenditure for litigation. I now come to the reversion of the lease, and I must confess that when I first saw that proposal I was very much drawn to it, but on thinking it over it seems to me that it is quite as impracticable as the rest of the scheme. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forgotten is this: That persons, in making contracts, take into account the reversionary value when the lease falls in. That is done every day, and I venture to think if he were to buy a piece of leasehold property to-day, he would, in deciding what price he could afford to pay, calculate, if he could, what was likely to be the value of the reversion accruing to it. Everybody does that as a matter of business. Therefore, if you now suddenly impose this tax, you are doing what the Government have pledged themselves not to do: you are virtually going back on existing contracts. After all, what is a reversion? In effect it is nothing more nor less than a deferred annuity. Men are at liberty to buy deferred annuities from insurance companies. Why also not to buy deferred annuities from the land-owner. I cannot see that there is any essential difference between buying a piece of land with a prospect of getting a higher value at a future date than there is in discounting a bill. These two commercial transactions are the same. In each case a man buys something to-day in order to get a higher value in the future. Coming to the halfpenny tax on unde-
    1840
    veloped land, my first objection to that is that it is bad finance. It is bad finance because, if the tax has the effect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates, and forces land into the market, then it will cease to bring in revenue, and I am one of those old-fashioned people who think you should impose taxes for the purpose of bringing in revenue. At any rate, that is sound Free Trade doctrine. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has put himself in the position of his opponents across the floor of the House. They are always thinking that in some mysterious way they can get revenue and Protection at the same time. I suppose, like most of us, they feel, indeed, a natural temptation to think that you can keep your cake and eat it too, but I would recommend them to follow the example of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, whose maxim is, to keep their own cake and eat other peoples. May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has yet thought out—I do not wish to press him too soon—any definition of "undeveloped land." He must clearly take into account agricultural land, because he is going to bring within his net all land worth more than £50 an acre, and a good deal of land in this country is worth more than £50 an acre, for purely agricultural purposes. What is to prevent a person who is afraid of this tax on undeveloped land, putting up a number of cheap sheds, or shanties, and saying he is using the land for building purposes, and it is no longer undeveloped. What is his definition of a house Would it keep out sheds and shanties and let in an hotel? As a matter of fact, directly he tries to put this tax into force, I believe, instead of bringing land into the market, he will bring land out of the market, and keep it out of the market. I know myself a case of a land-owner who, a few weeks ago, was spending a good deal of money in building roads upon his estate, but he has stopped that, because he does not want his land taxed as undeveloped building land.
    This tax does not only apply to people who have inherited their land, but to people who are buying land in the ordinary way of business. I have a letter which, I think, was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and is from the master builders of Bradford. They say they "most respectfully desire to point out that it is the usual practice in this district for builders to purchase the freehold of land for the express purpose of erecting buildings thereon (not for the purpose of keeping for

    1841
    increased value), therefore it is the raw material just as much as warp and weft for the manufacturer, and we humbly pray that nothing shall be done by your next Budget, 'or any other means,' to injure this class, which is made up of men who are not wealthy, having every penny which they possess spent in land for the purpose of trade, and, in many cases the land is heavily mortgaged." Are these men to be deprived of the profits of their industry in order to give effect to this theoretical tax? Let me give another case which those who favour a tax on land values would have jumped at if it had come into their hands. I make them a present of it. It is the case of a piece of land, about four acres in extent, situated close to the Manchester Ship Canal Company's docks. Here, some hon. Members would say, is a piece of land earning nothing at all at the present moment, being deliberately held up, no doubt, by some grasping nobleman. As a matter of fact, the land happens to belong to a widow, and I much regret to have to mention the widow in this House, because we have been almost forbidden to do so. But she happens to be a widow, and is largely supported by two sons, who are clerks earning small salaries. The income of the little property left her just about suffices to pay the interest on the mortgage, which her husband had to raise on this land, of £9,500. She is anxious to get rid of the land, and as a matter of fact it was put up for auction, and the only reserve put upon it was the actual figure of the mortgage, and there was not a single bid even approaching that price. How can anybody say that that land is being held up, and who is to pay the tax?—this woman or her two sons or the mortgagee? [An HON. MEMBER: "The mortgagee."] That brings me to the question what is to happen to the mortgagees: Are they also to be taxed? If not, the margin will very soon disappear. A mortgage is enterprise, my hon. Friend points out, but if you hold a freehold that is a crime.
    Let me ask, still pressing for a definition, whether Holland Park, which has already been mentioned, is to be treated as a piece of undeveloped land. I have often had the pleasure of passing Holland Park, and whenever I pass it I look through those railings, and I feel to myself that I enjoy that park almost as much as the man who owns the freehold. Hon. Members laugh at that. Are they at all sure it is not the fact? Do they know whether he lives there? It is a great lung for the whole of
    1842
    London, for all of us to gaze at as we go by. I suppose hon. Members who laugh would prefer to see it covered with a lot of houses with high walls in front shutting out all its beauty from the public. That is what would follow if you put a heavy tax upon this land, and compelled the landowner to sell. I am sorry he has already sold so much as he has sold. I wish the-park had been kept more open, and that more of it remained as a lung for London. At any rate let us preserve the open spaces-we have in London. Do not let us force the owners to cover them with bricks and mortar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us somewhat tardily that at any rate he is not going to subject corporation land to this new tax. I am very glad he has arrived at that conclusion. It is a very important conclusion, because the worst holders back of land are the corporations of our great towns, including the London County Council and Glasgow. The London County Council has been holding back land in the Strand for many years. Corporations are to be exempted because presumably their wealth is used for public purposes. But how about the case of the Dulwich College estates? The whole of that property is being used for public purposes. It is being used for almost the identical purpose for which the County Council now spends about five millions a year—on public education. Are these estates to be exempt from this tax or not? That is a question to which I hope we shall have an answer. And how about the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge? Are their estates to be exempt? Are they not doing as much public work as any municipality in the Kingdom? Are the estates of the Scotch Church to be exempted or not? The clergy of the Scotch Church are not so very wealthy that we should propose to put a special tax on their narrow incomes. Or to take another case which would perhaps more appeal to that section of the House. How about the friendly societies? I do not know whether the experience of hon. Members opposite-has been the same as mine, but I have had a great many letters from friendly societies expressing the hope that in any tax upon land values the property of friendly societies will be exempted. Is that property to be exempted or not? I think there is a great case equitably and a greater case politically for exempting them. Supposing you exempt the property of friendly societies on the ground

    1843
    that they are great corporations making provision for old age and sickness, by what justice will you tax the private individual who has made exactly similar provision for himself?
    I pass to another argument on which the President of the Board of Trade laid great stress the other day: the housing problem, Dealing with the argument with regard to Glasgow, which required 40 or 50 acres a year to expand, he said, "What does that matter when we are faced with the fact that there are so many thousand people in Glasgow living in one room?" Quite so. But he forgot to mention that in Glasgow only two or three years ago there were no fewer than 14,000 empty houses holding accommodation for 50,000 people. That is not confined to Glasgow. That same phenomenon can be witnessed in almost every big town in the United Kingdom, including London. The London County Council bought a great estate at Tottenham with the deliberate idea of providing accommodation for the working classes, who were supposed to be unable to find houses for themselves. They had that estate seven years. It comprised 225 acres, and they have only developed £8 of it. Why? Because there is no demand for more. Only yesterday I was visiting a building estate in the South of London, comparatively well developed, belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and they have laid it out with special care for the benefit of persons belonging to the working classes. They designed these houses with every regard to the pleasure of the eye as well as to practical convenience. They have given them little gardens in many cases, and they have made special provision for their comfort in numbers of ways which are not regarded in the ordinary commercial building estate, and yet on this model estate, in the very heart of South London, 12 per cent, of the houses are empty. In face of facts like these is it not absurd to talk of requiring to develop land in order to make more houses? Incidentally, if by these artificial means you did succeed in multiplying the London houses, it would not only be the land-owner whom you would be hitting, you would also be hitting all the persons who had invested their money in building. As to the theory that you are going to get rid of the problem of overcrowding in large towns by means of taxing land values, do lion. Members know what has happened in
    1844
    New York? They are fond of telling us that in New York they have taxation of land values. I daresay they have, but also—I take this from the Tenement Houses Department report of the State of New York—there were no fewer than 350,000 rooms in Greater New York without any daylight whatsoever. Is that your testimonial to taxing land values? Now one word with regard to ungotten minerals. Frankly, I am puzzled to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to get at the value of these ungotten minerals. It seems to me it would be quite as intelligent and probably much more lucrative to tax bachelors on the potential value of their ungotten children.
    I have now briefly touched on the main proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. I think the whole of this crusade against the land-owning classes—if one can call a thing a class which combines members of almost every class in the whole community—arises from the very common error of only seeing things immediately under our nose and observing the particular evils which occur in particular cases, owing undoubtedly to the abuse by land-owners in particular cases of the great powers they possess. I think the land-owners have not quite sufficiently realised the harm that one injudicious or vicious land-owner can do. I have referred more than once to the action taken by some land-owners in deliberately annexing property which is not theirs—roadside strips and rights of way which belong to the public. I hold most strongly that public property is quite as sacred as private property, and I say deliberately, carefully weighing my words, that a land-owner who knowingly appropriates to his own use a roadside strip or a right of way which is the property of the public is just as much a thief as any pickpocket in the dock. I am inclined to think that if land-owners themselves took a rather more active part than they have done in the past in preventing these abuses of power by people who are really subject to a trust, there would be less of that outcry against landlords than there is in many quarters. But allowing all this, allowing that many land-owners have abused their powers, is that any argument for putting a special tax upon all incomes derived from land, for that is what we are asked to do? That tax would not correct the particular evils we are complaining of. Take, for example, the case of the very common complaint that land-owners are reserving much too much land for the pleasure of sport—land which ought to be cul-

    1845
    tivated. I think that complaint is perfectly justified, and I am inclined to think this island is too small for any considerable portion of it to be given up to sport. But this tax would not touch that evil in the least. If you want to get rid of grouse moors and game preserves you must tax them. You must not put a tax upon the value of the land, because very often the land will command a higher value when let for this purpose than when let for agricultural purposes. So this patent taxation would do the very opposite of what you want it to do.
    But, generally, I contend that no abuses in our land-owning system, and there are many, will justify the imposition of a tax which must fall both on the good landlord and on the bad, both on the rich and on the poor landlord. I contend further that we are doing, or should be doing, grave injustice if we were to try and reverse the principles on which not only this country but all civilised countries have hitherto proceeded, the principle that land is interchangeable with all other forms of wealth. Up to the present, for centuries, these forms of wealth have been treated as interchangeable. A man has known that if he likes to invest his money in land he is free to do so, and he will not be subject to special attacks for doing so. But now that is to be reversed, and we are to reverse another principle which is equally precious, and towards which we have been working with remarkable progress during the last generation—the principle that the heaviest burden of taxation should be laid upon the broadest shoulders. That principle is now to be cancelled, and instead of making your taxation bear upon a man according to his means to pay, it is now proposed to pick out particular individuals, and because they have gone so far as actually to invest their savings in the soil of their country to hunt them down as if they were the enemies of mankind.
    Mr. G. R. LANE-FOX: The very able speech to which the House has just listened must convince many hon. Members who have not perhaps before realised it, that this question is not one, as they so fondly seem to suppose, which only touches a few favoured individuals in the community, but that it touches a very much larger class. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War yesterday told us that we were not dealing under this Resolution mainly with agricultural land, and that, therefore, the grievance of the agricultural owner was not raised. Would the right hon. Gentleman
    1846
    really tell us, or does he believe, that agricultural owners are not being touched by this taxation, and that capital will not steadily be drafted from the agricultural districts and out of the hands of agricultural owners through the effect not only of this Resolution, but of the other Resolutions we are to discuss later on dealing with the income tax and the death duties. Everybody knows that the effect of this and the other taxes must be to diminish the wealth and the capital which exists in the agricultural districts and the power of agriculturists to develop the properties they have. The landed class is supposed to be a small one, but hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise more after to-day that it is a larger class than is sometimes supposed.
    I should like to take the various duties proposed in the Resolution and show how they affect different classes. The first duty which is suggested in the first part of the Resolution is that with respect to the increment value which the right hon. Gentleman is going to levy every time a transfer, or a death, or a lease takes place The tax, being to the extent of 20 per cent., will after five transfers take the whole increment which has accrued. [Cries of "No."] I hold that that will be the effect of the tax, though hon. Gentle men opposite may think that it will not take the whole of the increment. That of itself is bad enough, but when it is added to death duties of from 10 to 15 per cent, and to a succession duty of 10 per cent., then I say these duties together make the burden on estates infinitely harder than they ought to be. In calculating the death duties these extra duties ought to be included, and not excluded from the calculation. There is no other landed property in the world that pays taxation both on its income and on its capital value, and I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell me of any nation which levies on the capital value and on the income derived from it taxation comparing in any sense with the taxation proposed under this Budget. We are approaching more nearly by these proposals to the cherished idea of certain hon. Members below the Gangway of complete nationalisation of the land than anything we have seen, and is it to be wondered that Socialist newspapers and speakers should claim the right hon. Gentleman as an apt pupil who has done as well as could be expected in introducing his first Budget. I should like to know who would wish to be a land-owner in the neighbourhood of a town if these

    1847
    proposals are adopted. There are large tracks of agricultural land in the neighbourhood of towns which must remain for many years agricultural land. That land is undeveloped. There are improvements needed on these estates in the way of buildings, but what agricultural landowner who has to pay this taxation is going to develop that agricultural land in order actually by his own action to increase the value of the land, and thereby increase the taxation he will have to pay upon it. The President of the Board of Trade had told us that he is going to introduce a Bill to improve the milk supply. That will involve expenditure on the part of landlords in providing improved buildings. Does anybody expect that such action as this would be taken in regard to property in the neighbourhood of a town when such taxation as this is hanging over them, with the chance of even heavier taxation in the near future? I would mention the case of the market gardener. It has come to be an accepted fact that the market gardener, like the widow, is to be taken as the victim of Liberal legislation, and it is almost like a platitude to mention him in connection with these matters. But I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that there are a great many who are interested in the development of agriculture in this nation, and also who are specially anxious to bring the inhabitants of the great towns into the country. That being so, and as it is important that the market gardeners should be in a position to provide for the population the necessary supplies, hon. Members will see what a great hindrance will be placed upon them by setting up such legislation as is foreshadowed in the Budget.
    Another thing which we are always told by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that it is most necessary that the transfer of land should be made easier and less expensive than it is now. We have been told that many of the evils from which the country is suffering are due to the difficulties in connection with the transfer of land. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make it easier to transfer land when at every transfer he is going to levy these heavy taxes? I think hon. Gentlemen will find that the transfer of land, if these proposals are carried out, will be made infinitely more difficult and more costly. The proposals in the first and second parts of the Resolution are innocence itself as compared with those contained in the third part. In the third part it is proposed to tax a man on what he
    1848
    actually has not got. On what principle of taxation ever recognised by the Liberal party, or by any other party, in this country is that to be justified? I wish to know how the increment is going to be proved, and how it is fair to charge under one lump sum upon renewal of leases. I think it would be fairer—and I would make this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman—to spread such taxation and payments over a series of years, and not to charge them in one lump sum.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: What period would you recommend?
    Mr. LANE-FOX: I was referring to the increment under a lease, and I recommend the spreading of the payments over a series of years. As regards the proposal in the second part of the Resolution, the duty, of course, would eventually be paid by the lessee. There is no question that in the end the present system of leasing will be altered so that the lessee will have to pay the taxation. That will involve considerable injustice and a distinct breach of existing contracts, because, as the House has been told time after time, these leases have been entered upon under certain conditions which are implied by or contained in the covenants which have been made. These proposals surely are contrary to anything ever expected to be brought forward in this House. But the most unjust tax is that contained in the third part of the Resolution, and it is justified by the right hon. Gentleman by the argument that it is necessary to-bring more land into the market, and to induce men to sell who at present are not willing to sell. The principle involved here is, of course, that a man should sell his land in order to provide for the revenue. I should say that this is far more a system of taxation for retaliation than for revenue. I do not know whether in this matter, as in some others, we are beginning to see the light of day in regard to our fiscal arrangements, and whether the principle of retaliation is beginning to obtain with the Government in this matter as in others. It is constantly asserted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he does not wish to act in these matters in a vindictive spirit towards certain classes. I think hon. Members would be more inclined to accept that statement if some of the proposals in the Budget were very much modified. The assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has made so frequently that this tax will fall upon

    1849
    those who are particularly free from taxation now is one which, judging from the correspondence which we receive in regard to the proposals, is not in any sense proved. I should like to read one of many letters I have been receiving from people who are going to be affected by this taxation. It is not a letter from a duke or a millionaire. It is from a working man, and he says:—
    "Out of my own wages, not great, I saved some £300 nearly, and with it bought some so-called building land a few years back. I can neither let this nor sell it, though I would do so at a loss, it has gone down in value so much. I evidently made a bad bargain; at that I am not whimpering. But now I am actually to pay a 'fine' of ½d. in the £ on its value (another Budget may make it 1d. or more) because it is undeveloped. I have no money to develop it, and I should be apparently better off if I had deliberately thrown my money in the gutter; there would be then no tax to pay. If the value of this land is nil, and therefore no tax payable, and in years to come I do sell it for what I paid or less, I shall then have to pay the Government 20 per cent, of what I get, and that after my money has been lying idle all that time."
    That is only one sample of the instances which are being brought before me, and I am perfectly certain that hon. Gentlemen on the other side are receiving letters of a similar nature from people who are as little able to pay. How does the right hon. Gentleman define development in the case of land? Is agricultural improvement going to be regarded as development, and, if it is, to what extent is it to be development? Is it to be by intensive culture, or is the right hon. Gentleman going to be content with the mere ploughing up of grass? Is the production of pigs going to be included in the development of the land, and, if so, how many pigsties per acre will constitute the amount of development which will bring the land under the tax? Is poultry farming to be development, and, if so, how many poultry will it be necessary to keep to make up a certain amount of development? How many hen-houses have to be put up to enable the right hon. Gentleman to say that the land is being developed? There must be a border line to show what is development, and what is not. If an owner values the land at too low a price, is he to be subject to payment of arrears? I wish to know what statute of limitations there is with respect to the valuation of an estate? Hon. Members know how difficult it will be to give a precise definition of the value of a particular piece of land, because so far the right hon. Gentleman has not told us what the unit of valuation is to be. How long after a landlord has made a good sale or a lucky bargain will exempt him from payment of arrears if the Excise should 20 or 30 years
    1850
    afterwards say, "You did not give a fair valuation of your land, and we will come down on you for the taxation which you ought to have paid since the valuation was given."
    If the proposals dealing with land are remarkable, the proposals dealing with un-gotten minerals are even more remarkable. You tax the mine-owner on his ungotten minerals as capital, and when he has got the mineral you make him pay income tax on it as income. Which is the mineral to be? While under the ground it is to be capital, and when it is out of the ground it is to be treated as income tax. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have it both ways, but the unfortunate owner is to be taxed if he puts his value too high: by a halfpenny on the amount which his minerals are supposed to be over a £50 minimum, and if he values it too low, he is going to be taxed 20 per cent, on the development value which is going to accrue afterwards. Is the right hon. Member going to tax minerals and building land on the same piece of ground? Is he going to tax the same piece of ground as having a mineral value and a building value? It is perfectly obvious that land cannot be said to have a building value if you are going to develop minerals underneath, and equally if it is to have a building value that you will have no chance of developing the minerals underneath. The Royal Commission which sat on the question of minerals in this country some years ago, I believe, stated that there were 8,000 square miles of productive coal measures, 5,500 of which were not worked; but of these 5,500 only 3,000 were workable owing to the depth which you would have to go to get such minerals as are there out of them. Who is going to prove in a case of this sort when does a mineral become ungotten, when does it leave the region of speculation and come into the margin of expectancy and come into the taxation of the right hon. Gentleman? Is not it perfectly obvious that under new developments of machinery minerals are got at a much lower depth than ever they were got before? And in the process of further invention of mining machinery it may be possible that a greater development may arise. By what possible means can you say a mineral becomes ungotten, and when does it cease to be a mere speculation and become more or less what you propose to tax?
    Then as to the determination of value. In the case of land there will be in some cases a standard of value by sales which

    1851
    have taken place and by offers which have been made, but in the case of these underground minerals it will be perfectly impossible in a great many cases to determine what the actual value is going to be. There is no justification for this taxation on minerals on the same ground as in favour of taxation of wholly undeveloped land, because, at any rate, I never heard and I do not think any hon. Gentleman in this House ever heard, of any owner on a large scale obstructing the development of minerals. You cannot say that an owner on a large scale is wishing to hold up any minerals in order to keep the public from the inestimable value of enjoying them. There is no justification for this taxation at all. There may be cases in which, for the sake of saving some fine mansion or beautiful park it is infinitely more in the interests of the community that the development of minerals in these places should be arrested. There may be a few cases of that sort, but I defy the right hon. Gentleman to show any large number of instances in which owners are holding up their minerals, and thereby obstructing the proper development of the mining industry. I am reminded by my hon. Friend that the Royal Commission itself reported that there was no instance that could be proved which came before them. The Government have not, I am thankful to say, developed the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme to the full extent. They have not endeavoured to separate the value of the building from the land to the extent that the hon. Gentleman proposes, which, to my mind, and could be easily proved, means the absolute ruin of many agricultural districts, but they have done enough, whether they say they are taxing land, whether agricultural or not, to shake the credit and capital of what is so necessary to develop and maintain the agricultural industry of this country. They have dealt a blow at the whole; for you cannot deal a blow at one part of the land only which will not be felt by every department of agriculture. Hon. Gentlemen will realise in a very short time that this will affect not one class, but all classes, and when they have tried to put some six new taxes upon one class of property they are thereby hitting every development of every branch of property, and to those who represent agricultural as well as those who represent urban constituencies this argument will be brought home before long. I hope during the course of these
    1852
    Budget discussions we shall have some considerable development in view of the light which will be brought to the minds of a great many hon. Gentlemen, but I have no hesitation myself in opposing to the full the proposals as put before us in these Resolutions, whatever the future may show in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. J. C. WEDGWOOD: I think there are no opponents of taxation of land value that I like better to hear and better to answer than the hon. Member who has just spoken and the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Preston. I like answering them because I feel that if our cause is right they must be answered, and they are dangerous unless they are answered. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston started his speech by putting his finger on the one point which it is essential that all who are in favour of the taxation of land values should satisfy themselves upon. He said: "Is it just to select one particular form of property for taxation?" It is because I can believe it can be proved to be just to select one particular so-called form of property for taxation that I am in favour of the taxation of land values. He says that increment, and it has been said on both sides of the House over and over again, accrues from every other form of property as well as land, and he gave us the example of a small village in which there was a village doctor, and the village developed into a populous neighbourhood, and he said as the value of the land in that village, growing into a populous neighbourhood, increases so also it increases the wages and the reward of his labour to the village doctor. It does nothing of the sort. As soon as the village increases in size the doctor finds himself immediately in competition with another village doctor. In the same way the professional man, as the small town grows into a large town, does not find that the bulk of the population enhances his earnings. He finds that a new professional man comes along competing with him. There is free competition between the medical men or the professional men, and the wages fall to the normal level. In the same way with the shopkeeper. Of course, to a certain extent, the shopkeeper who has got a freehold of a lot in the market place gets the benefit of an increase in the population of that market town, but if he is merely a leaseholder and can be rackrented, he would find himself again in competition with all the other shopkeepers in the place

    1853
    —more shopkeepers, more doctors, and more professional men tending to keep down the increase of wages of that particular form of labour.
    The same principle does not apply to the people who own the land round the growing town or in the village which is growing into a flourishing village. That is the reason why the unearned increment for land differs fundamentally from the return on capital or the reward of labour. My hon. Friend said the agricultural labourer got an increment equivalent, or to some extent equivalent, to the increment of land value, and that the growth of wealth and population of the community pushed up his earnings just as it pushed up the land values. It does nothing of the sort. So long as three men compete for one job, and are anxious to get that job, and must get it or walk the streets, those three men will undercut, and continue to undercut, each other until wages come down. There is the strongest competition in the labour market, but the owner of land is in a different position. He is entitled to say, "The supply of land such as mine is limited, and when the growth of the community forces up this land for me, I am perfectly entitled"—and he is perfectly entitled—"to get the best possible price I can for my land and the best possible rents." But the rents and the land values there are created entirely by the growth of the community. My hon. Friend then went back to an old illustration which he gave us two or three years ago. He said if a man invested his money in land 25 years ago, or, as he took it previously, 250 years ago, if he invested £100 in land in the City of London 250 years ago, and another man invested £100 in some form of capital enterprise 250 years ago, that now that capital would have increased to so many millions, and the land value would only have increased to so many hundred thousand. That illustration is entirely inapplicable. He has taken into consideration land which is not used and capital which is used. Every year that £100, which is invested, say, in Consols, is bringing him in rents which are reinvested, and so increasing what we call the unearned increment of the capital. Every year the land is lying absolutely idle. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] He is assuming that. He is assuming that the increase in the value of the land is no greater than the increase in the value of the capital, that if it had been capital the value of the land would have increased to £100,000, and the
    1854
    value of the capital would have increased to several millions.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: What I really did say was that the man would make a better bargain by investing his money in Consols and getting the capital interest than he would make by investing his money in land and waiting for 200 years.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Of course that is so; but suppose that the man instead of letting his land lie idle had used his land all along and got what rents he could, then he would obviously have accumulated at the end of the 200 years not only the million that he would have got from Consols, but he would have the land over and above; or suppose, on the other hand, that both capital and land had lain idle, suppose he put the £100 into his trousers' pocket, then at the end of the 250 years he would still have had £100 in gold, while if he had invested it in land he would have had land worth £100,000.
    If both capital and the land are idle, the increment goes on for the land. There is no increment on capital. If you consider them both in use, then the interest on capital is no greater than the rent that could have been got for the land. Two hundred and fifty years ago the man who invested his money in land in the City of London bought the privilege to say whether anybody else could use that piece of land or not. Hon. Members opposite say that we attach some mysterious connection between licences and land values. Of course there is a very great distinction between the two; but supposing that 250 years ago this man who had purchased land in the City of London purchased also the exclusive right to supply liquor on that piece of land, and that way he would have acquired another privilege, which, as the population increased and London developed, would become more and more valuable. In both cases there is a privilege involved—the privilege of saying whether people shall live on that land, and the privilege of saying whether people shall drink on that land. He might have got another privilege—the same privilege as the Duke of Bedford has—of saying that there shall be no market within a certain number of miles of his particular piece of ground. There, too, you would have got a privilege which, as the population increased and the town developed, would have become of enormous value. Another form of privilege. Supposing a Tariff Reform Government came into power in this country, and that they

    1855
    put a protective tariff around certain industries or bolstered up certain industries in this country. Supposing that under the protecting wings of a tariff an industry, such as the silk industry, were to spring into being, as we all know that once you get a tariff protecting any industry into existence you will have every succeeding five years an increase of the tariff. We will suppose that the tariff protecting this industry was in this case a 5 per cent, tariff. In five years it would become a 10 per cent, tariff, five years later 15 per cent., and five years later again 20 per cent. Everybody will see that under this protective tariff that industry would be perfectly well able to flourish at the expense of the rest of the community. Under that protective tariff we will assume that the widow or the orphan of the market gardener invest their money in this particular business—that they pay good money for a share in this protected industry. Will my Friend at the end of the 20 years remain a Free Trader, anxious to remove that protective tariff and to deprive these people of what is not property, but what is a privilege created by the law? I believe honestly that if that came to pass my hon. Friend would not be a Free Trader any longer. He would say that the widow and the orphan of the market gardener had invested their money, that it was a business protected by the law, that they had not only invested in this business protected by a tariff, but also that they had been led to assume that the tariff was to increase by 5 per cent, every five years. But observe what this Government does as to the land. They do not say that the privilege shall not increase every year; they say that it shall not increase by 5 per cent, every five years, but only by 4 per cent.; they are only taking one-fifth of the unearned increment on the land.
    The more I see of politics the more I become convinced that the whole of politics is one perpetual struggle between the vested interests and the public interests, or, if I may be permitted to say so, between privilege and justice. I quite see the Conservative point of view, and I quite appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view. I think there is a great deal to be said for their position. If the State has persistently allowed some privilege to exist and to be bolstered up, there is a great deal to be said for the position that it must go on. But I do not think that is the Liberal point of view. I am quite confident that the Liberal point of view
    1856
    on every question should be not the immediate abolition of privilege by any harsh measures, but to effect its gradual destruction. That is obvious enough in the case of protected industries, and it is obvious enough in the case of the vested interest which the licensed trade has been permitted to build up. It is as obvious to me also in the case of land, the privilege in connection with which has been allowed to go up for centuries. I want to deal with another point of my hon. Friend on which I believe I am a Free Trader and he is a Protectionist. He said there are now so many unoccupied houses in London, or wherever it may be, that it is ridiculous to say that we want to have more built. There are two ways of filling those houses which are now empty in London or in other great towns. There is the Protectionist way, and it is my hon. Friend's way. The Protectionist would say, "We will not build any more houses, because there are houses empty. If you refuse to build any more houses the people will be forced to take the houses which are empty, and those houses will be filled." There is a great deal to be said for that point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody said it."] You are complaining that there are houses empty at present, and therefore no more ought to be built. You can fill those houses if you allow the population to increase and build no more. Or you can build more houses in another way, by allowing free expansion in the building trade and free competition in houses, so that the price in the house trade will drop. It has been said over and over again in "The Spectator," and also by my hon. Friend, that Free Trade believes that taxation should not be used to create a preference between one form of property or another, or to create any preference between different categories of property. I quite agree that taxation should not be used to do anything of the sort; but with our present system of taxation there is this difficulty. Our present system of taxation exempts from taxes and rates all land that is not used, whereas taxes and rates are put on those who do use the land.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Where is the exemption? What does the hon. Gentleman mean by land not used being exempted from rates?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Land not used is exempted from rates; that is exactly what I mean.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by that?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Empty houses.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: They are not land.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Does not unused land pay death duties on the capital value?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is exempted from rates, and it is exempted from income tax as far as I know. It is that exemption of which I complain. If taxation were levied uniformly on all owners of land, not only would you not be penalising the good owner of land, but you would be absolutely killing bad owners of property. That is what we are pressing for. We feel that taxation should not suddenly penalise a particular form of property. All we are asking is that you should cease the present differentiation which is bad for industry and bad for good developing landlords. I do not think it is really necessary to go into the rest of my hon. Friend's observations about the difficulties of the valuation of land, apart from buildings, machinery, and other things. After all, has it not been done in every agricultural country, in urban areas, and in every Continent, by all Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, and Americans? I am sure in South Africa I had a good deal to do myself with valuation, and my only difficulty in making separate valuations of land and buildings on a capital basis was that the owners of property came to me afterwards and complained that I had valued them too low. They would say, "I know there is a rate of 3d. in the pound on capital value, but do remember I want to sell my land or mortgage my land, and if you put it down too low in your book I will not get a good price for my land." Moreover, I should like to quote an authority which hon. Members opposite approve of—Mr. T. C. Horse-fall, of Manchester. He pointed out in his excellent book the example of Germany, and how in Cologne, under the old system, that is, under the annual value system, there were in one year 2,703 appeals against over 21,000 assessments. Under the new system of rating, that is, the selling value or capital value, there were only 174 appeals, that is to say, there was a fall in appeals, and therefore a fall in litigation, in the case of Cologne, from 2,703 to 174. It is obvious as a matter of fact it is much easier to value property on its capital value than on its annual value, because there is a great deal of property which is owned, by the occupier. Where it
    1858
    is not owned by the occupier, and where it is rated, you find that the rentals by no means represent the proper rateable value. In dealing with some of the taxes proposed by the Government, I agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the increase of the tax is a drawback to the market value of land. I am conscious that we approach this question from the point of view of our agitation in the country, which is somewhat different from that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He sees land primarily as a source of revenue. We have perpetually driven home this land question from another point of view. We have always advocated this land question not as a new source of revenue but as a change in the standard of taxation on property on such lines as to induce owners to make use of their property, and not to penalise those people who do not develop their land. While we quite agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to approach this problem from a different point of view, we are extremely grateful for those occasions where our views have happened to coincide with his necessities. So far as the transfer duty is concerned by the increase from 10s. per cent, to £l per cent., you are not making a freer market; you are making it more difficult to get land instead of less difficult. We want to make it easier for people. So far as the transfer duty is concerned, I find myself entirely in sympathy with those people who would like to see the whole transfer duty abolished.
    So far as the taxes on unearned incomes are concerned, how far does that tax tend, as at present intended to be levied, towards increasing the free market in land, towards making it easier for the man who wants land to get the land to use? I am afraid, as at present levied, it must have to a certain extent the same effect as the transfer fee. It would tend to restrict the sale. I would earnestly impress upon the Chancellor and upon the Government the importance of making this unearned increment tax not a tax dependent on the sale, but a tax which shall be periodic in its imposition. But if you insist on keeping the sale basis, then the tax should be so graduated that when the previous sale was a long time ago it should be at a higher rate, and if the sales succeed themselves rapidly it should be at a low rate. You want to prevent the man holding the land for a long time. Therefore I think your tax should be graduated on the basis that the longer a man holds it the greater the tax should be.
    Let me come to the one ewe-lamb of the

    1859
    Chancellor's Budget—the part we pin our faith to and on which the Budget, I think, will stand or fall. That is the halfpenny tax upon undeveloped land and undeveloped building. It is that tax which seems to me to be of infinitely more importance than the whole of the rest of the Budget. In that tax the kernel of the solution of the unemployed difficuly lay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall quite prove what I say. We want, in order to reduce our unemployment, to increase productive work. We do not want to make wealth for people; it is on productive work we must concentrate our attention. I think everybody will agree with that. What is productive work? All productive work from the economist point of view consists in the application of labour to land and raw material. At every stage of productive work it is the land which is one of the factors in that process. For instance, productive work takes the clay and turns it into cups and saucers. It takes agricultural land and turns it into bread and butter. It takes the coal from the ground and turns it into coal gas or coal in kitchen grates. Those are all examples of productive work. From the economist point of view every form of productive work consists in the transfer of land and raw materials into the finished article where you want it and when you want it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Iron and 'Dreadnoughts.'"] Yes, even "Dreadnoughts." The iron is got from the soil mixed with limestone. The coal is got from the land and the furnace is standing on the land, so that at every stage of the process the land is one of the items.
    Therefore I say, if you want to increase productive work the one obvious way to do it is to make it easy for labour and capital to apply themselves to the land easier than it is at present. Are you not making it easier by taxing undeveloped land which is held out of the market? I think the real centre or kernel of this land question is the connection between shortage of work and shortage of land. If there is shortage of work it is because labour is unable to apply itself to the raw material. I wish I could make the House see it as clearly as I see it. I see on one side, as it were, a stone wall or a brick wall, and on one side is the man able, anxious and willing to work. On the other side of the wall is the raw material which alone he can work, and in between them there is this wall. I want that wall lowered so that the man who wants to work
    1860
    shall be able to get over it easier without being charged a high price. The man on that wall is able to prevent that man working. He is able to create unemployment and in countless cases does create unemployment. Let me give one example of how I think the tax on undeveloped minerals will help employment in this country. The House will remember some years ago there was a great strike in North Wales at Bethesda Quarries. For three years 2,800 quarrymen were deprived of access to those great quarries. I am not going into the merits of the question of whether Lord Penrhyn or the men were right. I only want the House to see that those men were deprived of access to the raw materials and therefore unemployed. Now, because those men were unemployed and not working the slates, the people who worked the railway which runs down from Bethesda to Port Penrhyn were also unemployed.
    Mr. REMNANT: Is it suggested the present tax would have opened those slate quarries?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am coming to that. The people who worked the railway were also thrown out of employment. Port Penrhyn clerks were also out of work. The foremen in the different works were thrown out of employment by the prevention of your primary quarrying trade having access to the land. The retail shopkeepers in Bethesda and Port Penrhyn were not able to make their bit of profit selling goods, and because the retail shopkeepers were not able to sell their goods all over the country the woollen trades in the West Biding, the drapery and hardware trades, had people who were thrown out of work because they were not able to satisfy the wants of the people in Bethesda, who were out of work and could not buy the materials. I am only trying to show how the prohibition of one of the primary opportunities of having access to the land affects the whole trade of the community. If you collected all those people out of work you would have a perfectly genuine and perfectly typical unemployed demonstration. That is one illustration of how under our present system that state of things is encouraged.
    Directly Lord Penrhyn closed down his quarries he went to the assessment committee, and got the assessment reduced by £14,600. In other words he had his rates remitted, because in the exercise of his perfectly legitimate powers he created that mass of unemployment. Now, at any rate, when this ½d. tax upon undeveloped

    1861
    land is being levied he will have that ½d. tax to pay whether he works the quarry or not. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whether he works it or not?"] Yes, whether the quarry is worked or not. It will be independent of the output of the quarry, and it will be independent of the assessment for rates or income tax. If the quarry is not working that tax will be paid; if it is working it will be paid.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is that so?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but whether it is working or not that tax, I believe, will have to be paid. This tax which is proposed is exactly similar to the dead rent tax which the owner of minerals charge to mineral lessees at present. When the owner of mineral lands leases his land at present to a lessee he charges not only a royalty dependent on the number of tons of coal or iron got up, but he charges also a dead rent. He charges that dead rent with this intention: he says if I only charge a royalty, the lessee may not sink his pits at once. He may not develop the property immediately. He may wait perhaps some years for the price of coal to go up. In order to prevent that state of things he charges a dead rent tax, which has to be paid by the occupier whether the pit is worked or not, whether there is a large output or a small output. He taxes it so as to secure a large output, and it has the desired effect. It is a perfectly legitimate and a perfectly sound system of ensuring the rapid development of mineral property. We want to deal with the landlords on exactly the same principles as they deal with their lessees. We want to put a dead rent tax on them similar in character to the dead rent tax which they put on their lessees, simply with the same object, to secure the rapid and full development of mineral properties.
    I think, therefore, that the half-penny tax, by inducing the owners of land, of mineral land and of building land, to develop their property more quickly, will tend to absorb unemployment and will tend to absorb the unemployed more than any other part of the Budget. My only regret is that in this undeveloped tax agricultural land has been left out, and that agricultural land has not received the same treatment as mineral and building land. Hon. Friends opposite have asked over and over again: what is undeveloped land? I will tell them my definition of what undeveloped land is. My definition of undeveloped land is all land whose
    1862
    capital value is more than 25 years' purchase of the present annual rent, that is to say, all land for which the owner is not getting at present a commercial rent, all land which, if exchanged for other forms of property, is bringing in less than it would if invested in other forms of property.
    Mr. REMNANT: Does the hon. Member apply that to allotments in the neighbourhood of towns?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Certainly, if in the case of allotments the price has gone up to £500 per acre, showing a demand on the part of the community for building land, then I say that land is undeveloped.
    Mr. REMNANT: It would tax them out of existence.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I regret that agricultural land is not being forced into the market in the same way as building land and mineral land. I recall the Chancellor of the Excequer's recollection to a noble speech he made at Liverpool only five months ago, when he pointed out that the land of this country was frozen up under the old feudal system. He said that he waited for the springtime when the thaw would set in, and when the people and the children of the people would enter into the inheritance that has been given to them. The springtime is not coming through this Budget, but it is coming later on, and I think that in this Budget we are laying the foundations for a reform, which will be of infinite benefit to the people of this country.
    I am not going to sit down without pointing out to hon. Members what the completion of my policy really is. It is only honest. I know hon. Members opposite think me a terrible robber. What we want to do is to place the taxes on property at a standard which shall ensure their rapid development. We are not anxious, I am not anxious, I do not think any of my land-tax friends are anxious to extract an unfair tribute from property. What we want to do is to ensure that the land of this country which is absolutely essential to every form of industry shall be put to its commercial use, and in the best possible way. I would like to illustrate my position by an allegory by Count Leo Tolstoy. That is a name which commands respect on every side of the House. Count Leo Tolstoy says: "I saw all mankind as a herd of cattle, bulls and eows and calves, all inside a wire fenced-in enclosure. Out-

    1863
    side the enclosure there is beautiful green pasture and plenty to eat; inside the enclosure there is not quite grass enough for the cattle, and consequently the cattle are goring each other and trampling each other under foot in their ettorts to get what little grass there is. I saw the owner of that herd of cattle, who was a good-natured, well-meaning man, come to the cattle; when he saw their condition he was sorry for them, and bethought him what he could do to improve their lot. He put up beautiful, well-drained, and well-ventilated cowsheds, so that the cattle should have shelter at night; he screwed knobs on to the ends of their horns, so that they should not gore each other so fiercely in the struggle for existence; and he ringed off one part of the enclosure and reserved it for the old bulls and old cows, so that at the end of their life they might escape the struggle for existence and be sure of grass. Because the calves were being killed off, dying of starvation, and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should all have a pint of milk for breakfast every morning, so that, although none of them got enough, yet they all had something to keep them alive. In fact, the owner of that herd of cattle did everything he could think of to improve their conditions. But when," said Tolstoy, "I asked why he did not do the one obvious thing, pull down the fence and let the cattle get out, he replied, 'Because if I did that, I should no longer be able to milk them.'" That is the real answer. Fortunately the cattle breed more quickly than the owners, and some day they will put their heads together and break that fence down.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies, I wish to put some questions in order to find out what is the true nature of this Resolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford yesterday put some very specific questions to the representatives of the Government, and he was answered by the 'Secretary of State for War, who spoke for some 35 minutes, in the course of which scarcely a word of the Budget Resolution was made intelligible to the House. As I desire to be very brief, the hon. Member who has just spoken will not think me disrespectful if I do not follow him in his speech. But I am perfectly content to say with regard to the abstractions in which he largely moved that I am in agreement with what the hon. Member for
    1864
    Preston stated, and I do not think anything that has passed since has shaken me in that conviction or requires from me any further devolopment of the points, then so admirably put. I wish to ask, from a strictly practical point of view, what is the real meaning of the Resolution? My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, speaking yesterday of the increment tax upon land, asked what the unit of valuation was to be. We have not had any reply, although we have been debating the matter for five or six hours since. Unless it should by any possibility be said that the question was not intelligible, let me give the simplest illustration of it. Suppose I have a house and five acres of land; that two or three of those acres of land intervene between the house and the road; that the property has been bought all at once, and that some geologist informs the local authority that there are ungotten minerals underneath the house; and that a tax which I am not able to pay, except by selling something, is levied upon me—that h to say, that a sudden demand is made upon me for money, and I have to sell a portion of the five acres. I sell two acres next the road at the price, say, of £300 an acre. Are the Revenue officers entitled to take those two acres and to say that, as I gave only £200 an acre, they may tax me on the increment, or may I say,. "It is true, if you take those two acres, that I may have made a profit upon them; but I am entitled to look at my property as a whole; and although those two acres; have been sold at a profit, the remaining three acres and the house itself have been depreciated. In other words, I have lost the privacy and amenities of my house by selling the two acres which separated it from the road, and there is on the estate as a whole an actual loss." It is really astounding that, after the extremely lucid way in which this question-was put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who was replied to by a master of law, that simple problem has never been solved, and all this time we have been debating in the air. What can be the reason? The first suggestion I make is that the Government have not thought out their proposal at all, and do not know. If they do know, why do they not tell us? I suppose they are averse to telling us that a man should be taxed upon the unearned increment of his property when, in point of fact, on the property as a whole, he is not a gainer by increment, but a loser by

    1865
    decrement. One would imagine that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite looked upon land as an objectionable thing which ought to be taxed. But you do not put the impost on land—you put it on the owner; and if you can show that the owner of the land, so far from, on the whole, having made money by a process of unearned increment, has actually lost, by what pretence of justice can you put any such tax upon him? That is the first point to which I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay special attention.
    Then take another case which I will give in order to raise a point of extreme importance which has not yet been answered by the Government. A few years ago a friend of mine gave £10,000 for some building land. It was valued with extraordinary precautions by three or four first-rate valuers, and there was also a measure of value for the property in some actually adjacent land which had been sold for £500 an acre, and this property was bought at the same rate. But one of those curious set-backs occurred which are quite familiar to everybody in the habit of dealing in land, and although the adjacent property went off extremely well, my friend has been in possession of his property ever since, and not a single builder has ever approached him with a view to buying the land. The House will readily appreciate that, as all the interest and outgoings have been charged upon the £10,000 for five or six years, my friend's capital account now stands at a debit of £12,000. This gentleman is really not an offender against the public; but what does this unearned increment tax propose to do for him? It is proposed to draw a line at this moment, and to inquire from him—I believe that is the ironical proposal—what the value of the property is. How does he know? I do not doubt myself that it is not worth more than £5,000, and if the Government pursue their plan they will enter as the basis of valuation upon which the betterment charge is to be made the present value of the property at £5,000, and would write off a loss of £7,000. If the property goes up to £6,000, or £7,000, or £8,000, or £9,000, my friend will still be a loser upon the whole transaction; but on this proposed admirable principle of equity he, although a loser to the extent of £3,000 or £4,000, is to be charged one-fifth of the rise above the £5,000. Does any rational man justify such a tax as that? Is it possible to justify taking a loser and taxing him as a gainer? I do not put this point from the point of view of one who
    1866
    owns land himself, but I have had in Hampstead an experience which is very familiar to the Local Government Board—an experience as president of a garden suburb which many Members have seen. Let me briefly describe the objects of that suburb. We start a company; we limit the dividend to 5 per cent.; we limit by statute the number of houses to be put to the acre; we make it a special object in the development of the suburb of preserving open spaces and all objects of natural beauty so far as is consistent with the development of the estate. So highly is this enterprise, and others which preceded it, valued in the eyes of the Government that a colleague of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Local Government Board, has introduced a Bill for housing and town planning, and I shall show in a moment that the tax which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to levy is directly in conflict with the objects of that Housing and Town Planning Bill. Now, according to this, how will the taxation act? Let me keep the two cases separate in my mind. How will the tax on increment on value affect a certain enterprise like this, one which has the goodwill of all sections of this House? The whole of the financial basis upon which this very laborious and somewhat risky enterprise—all building enterprises have many elements of risk—is founded, may be altered when we have such a tax as this. But much more so if we have a tax upon undeveloped land. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer think this out, if he will, with me for a moment. The whole object of the thing is not to reproduce on the suburbs of London the melancholy rows of houses that are sometimes seen, and that are 50 houses to the acre. Our object is to put only some 12, and generally eight, houses on the acre, and to provide open spaces, lawn tennis grounds, recreation grounds, and so forth. That is the very essence of the thing. Such suburbs are coming into vogue now, and are creeping up around our big towns, and not only are they admirable in themselves, but they furnish absolute lungs for the congested populations within the congested areas of London You are going to tax these. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, but I will not reply to the hon. Friend who contradicts me, for I suppose nobody knows for a certainty what the proposals are. The Government keep our interest alive day after day as to the precise nature of the torture they are going to inflict upon the owners of property. Day

    1867
    by day they keep themselves off the Front Bench, and information is withheld from the House in consequence.
    What is undeveloped land? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, gave us some clue. Land, he said, which was not put to its best commercial advantage. Is that right? Apparently the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed his mind since he made the Budget speech. So for a moment I will take that out. It is obvious that if the land in these open spaces, in this garden suburb, are to be developed to the best advantage financially, why of course they will be used at once for building houses upon. The very object for which this whole enterprise was started, and the very object for which the Housing and Town Planning Bill was brought forward by this Government, and upon which we have spent month after month upstairs and elsewhere in Debate—that very object will be frustrated. Manifestly you could not in such an enterprise as this do other than mete out the same justice as to anyone else. May I recur to the illustration I gave of the five acres? If two acres can be sold profitably for building land, manifestly, according to this precious provision, they ought to be sold, or if not sold they ought to be taxed. See what a monstrous injustice will arise! You would as the rating authority, and as the revenue authority, under Schedule A continue to tax this house, which I have mentioned, as if it still had the privacy and enjoyment of the five acres. Yes, you would still do that, and the public authorities, the rating and the revenue authorities, would get the value of the assessment as if this house had not depreciated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another aspect, says: "Oh, no, although we are taxing you as if your house was still private, the two acres ought to have been built upon." In other words, they seek first to have a tax because you have not built, then they wish to retain the full tax as if you had not built. Do I make that clear? Five acres, and the house. A certain value attaching to the house by its privacy, and standing in five acres of land. The Government say: "Two acres of this is building land; if you will not build upon that we will tax you."
    Meantime, as I have not built upon these two acres, and as I have retained the privacy of the house, I shall be still taxed upon the full value of the five acres. Is
    1868
    that tenable? Can any man of sense, I will not say justice, get up and say in this House that these provisions are tenable? What do you think it is going to cost to put these precious provisions into force? I have summed up this Bill. I do not go to Germany, because I know that the state of things there and here is entirely different. There are things in the way of officialism which the German people submit to which are not existing here, and which I do not think would be readily or easily created here. One experience from this country is worth twenty from Germany. The London County Council, a body of great wealth and great experience, and of very strong radical opinion in reference to this subject, for over twenty years has been endeavouring to put a betterment into force. The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in what I am going to say. About 15 years ago, at the time of the Tower Bridge improvement, an Act of Parliament was passed which prescribed that an initial valuation should be made of certain houses within what was called the betterment area—that is to say, the area which might be expected to be bettered from making the improvements. The initial valuation had to be made of sites—that is, land alone—and then of sites and houses. You then had data from which to start. The improvement would then take place. After the improvement had taken place, and there had been time for its effects to be appreciated, there was to be a second valuation, and then there would be assessed how much the houses and sites in the bettered area had been bettered. A percentage was then to be levied by way of tax upon the betterment area. That is exactly the scheme of the Government, though I must say it was put forward and elaborated with far greater knowledge by the County Council. At all events, we have seen no proof to the contrary at present.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: You had better wait.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Then I will withdraw that. What does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the result of the Resolution? There will be no result. The expense of the initial valuation of the London County Council was so heavy that the County Council, although bold in a matter of business, having spent all this money upon the initial valuation, which could be of no good to anybody actually,

    1869
    could not go on with a second valuation, which was to get at the value. I think those are the facts.
    Mr. W. H. DICKINSON: That is not quite accurate, according to my information. I had hoped for an opportunity to bring before the House the facts in this case.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I cannot say what the whole of the facts are. I am quite certain that my statement of the initial valuation is accurate. I am certain that that initial valuation was very costly. These I give to the House on my own responsibility. I am not aware precisely what the result has been, but I am informed that no second valuation has ever taken place. However, whatever that result, it has been such as not to tempt the County Council to make a betterment charge upon any area upon which they have been engaged. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to do? He proposes to put upon the unfortunate owner of land the task of making this valuation himself. That is part of the absurdity. Anyone with the slightest experience in matters of this kind knows that it is difficult for a skilled man, and certainly for an unskilled man, to make a valuation. It is a matter to a large extent of conjecture and speculation. The position of the unfortunate owner reminds me rather of what takes place at Wimbledon when the marksman is firing at the running stag. The marksman is fined 10s. if he hits the stag behind. But in this case the analogy would be that the owner would be fined 10s. if he hit it behind, or in front, or anywhere excepting the middle. If he hits the bullseye in the very middle he is penalised. If the landowner values his land too high he will have to pay a tax at that height. If he values it too low, when the betterment charge, the increment charge, comes to be levied, the difference will be greater, and he will have to pay a greater tax upon that. Therefore the owner who is ignorant exactly of the value of his land is called upon at his own expense, as I understand it, to make his valuation, and to make it with such accuracy that if he falls below he is fined, and if he goes above he is fined. Has anybody ever heard of such a thing? The right hon. and learned Gentleman reminds me of the last point with which I have to trouble the Committee. This has been put forward by genuine enthusiasts who have quoted Tolstoy and other great visionary social reformers to us. This is
    1870
    relied upon as a very splendid social movement.
    The effect of it would be that although an enormous burden would, I believe, be cast upon the owners of property, the money would not go into the Exchequer that would be sweated off these people. Where would it go? It would go into the pocket of the lawyers and the surveyors. I say so without any doubt. Let any man fairly address himself to this question and he will see what the result will be. Take, for instance, a man who has laid out £100,000 in buying land for the purpose of developing an estate. With roads and other initial expenditure he will probably lay out another £100,000. That is £200,000 in all. If anything goes wrong, if there is any movement of population, if a railway is opened, or if an electric tram is started so as to appreciate the neighbourhood, if there is one of those mysterious changes which very often occur—we have only to mention South Kensington—any unforeseen change that takes place—this man who laid out this immense sum of money may find himself with enormous and heavy charges which result from that capital which had been running against him for years, and, as in the case put by the hon. Member for Preston, he would very likely do far better if he had laid out his money and accumulated it at compound interest. Supposing things get better and he comes before a valuer—an Excise man—who may affirm that he has made unearned increment, and suppose he denies it; surely that is a very difficult problem indeed; it would require, I think, the accutest and most experienced of us to give even an approximate answer to it.
    Let me put to the House one or two of the questions that would be asked. What ought to be the reward for a man who invests his money at such risk? That is a pretty difficult question to begin with. How much ought he have to spend in the enterprise at all? Was he wise in doing so? Were the expenses he entered upon judicious? All these are questions which a very junior member of the Bar would be able to argue and argue effectively for many hours. Are these cases to be proceeded with all over the country? Do the Government really look forward to such a consummation as that? Do they wish to turn every collector of revenue into a valuer and arbitrator to discuss these questions, or if not to discuss them to settle them after discussion? The bare idea is preposterous.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman cheers that. Let us see what the results are. If he does not investigate these things, and by persons competent to investigate them, then, of course, in many cases in which there is a difference between the owner and the State he will throw the greatest grievance upon the owner, because the owner has a right to say that in such a difficult problem as this no taxation should be taken out of him until it is proved, and proved by competent men that that taxation is properly leviable. It is not properly levied, and it cannot be shown to be properly leviable unless you have competent persons to adjudicate upon the matter. Surely that is so.
    With regard to ungotten minerals I should point out that there we have absolutely no answer to the questions which have been put by my hon. Friends. I heard of a case of an hon. Friend of mine. For a long time he believed there were minerals under his estate; for a long time he shrank from the great speculative risks which was necessarily to be run before he bored and investigated to see if there was coal in payable quantities on his estate or not. Ultimately he did sink for coal, and developed a very narrow profit. Coal was found, and found in the adjacent fields of his neighbour also. Supposing that coal, after he had bored for it at immense expense, was found to exist, but not in payable quantities, it would then be ungotten minerals if he left it in the land. Would he have to pay under these conditions? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question. I think it would be a monstrous injustice that he should have to pay, he would have undertaken great risks and great expense in ascertaining that there was coal on his estate. If it was payable coal it would be a great advantage to the whole neighbourhood; if it was not payable then he would have incurred the cost, and on one reading of this Resolution he would have been liable for the tax which would be levied upon him on ungotten minerals. I should like that question to be answered, and to be made perfectly clear. I think I know where this desire for taxing ungotten minerals was obtained. I know that railway companies taking the property compulsorily from owners who believe there is some mineral underneath, have to face claims sometimes for ungotten minerals and prospective value. I suppose that is the precedent on which the
    1872
    Government have drawn. I should like to point out that I believe no case can be quoted where taxation is based upon so careless and so speculative an enterprising data as that in which it is proposed to tax ungotten minerals in this Resolution.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The speech we have just heard illustrated, I think, probably better than any speech we have heard in the course of these proceedings, the real futility of discussing details of a Bill before it is introduced. The right hon. Gentleman compared us to novelists who have constantly something surprising in store for the public. May I compare him with a critic who insists on criticising a novel before it is even published. I would even go further, and compare him to one who has sued for an injunction in order to prevent a novel from being published so that he may have a whole fortnight in which to criticise it in advance. There could not have been a possible, a better, illustration. The right hon. Gentleman will discover it himself when he sees the Bill. Take his elaborate criticism of the destructive effects of our proposal on garden cities. There was not a single word in it relevant, not a single word of it had reference to our proposals. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to assume that for the first time I have been informed on this subject by himself. Will be believe me when I tell him I have had all this in my mind before, and not only me but my colleagues, and that that is one of the things we particularly wanted to guard against? That view we take very strongly. I agree with him there is nothing, I think, more undesirable than the present system of dismal, dreary houses, without any sort of amenities at all—hardly a courtyard. I agree that very admirable work is being done by the garden cities in developing houses for the working men on some more rational plan. Does he really believe that we are going to introduce a Bill which is destructive of one of the best features of the housing development in this country? All that he has got to do is just to confine himself to the general principles embodied in the Resolution, which will simply enable us to introduce the Bill dealing with taxation upon these general lines, and I think it may be assumed that we have all these problems in our minds.
    There is not a single proposal which he elaborated with great ingenuity that we have not in our mind, and have guarded against, and what applies to the right hon.

    1873
    Gentleman applies also to the difficulties found by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. I have no doubt that when he sees the Bill he will be able to find cause for fresh criticism. He very kindly informed the House that when he first heard my plan he really thought the third part of it—[An HON. MEMBER:" The second part of it."] Yes, the second part of it, a very good one; but luckily, having thought it out, he was able to console himself by finding some objection even to that. I have no doubt he would be able, with his critical and essentially analytical mind, to find difficulties in every conceivable scheme, but the particular difficulties which he found to-day are really not in the Bill. I can give him a case in point. Take the case of a man who ten years ago bought land for £100,000. It falls to £80,000 in two or three years, and then goes back to £90,000. That man will have lost £10,000. Perhaps the hon. Member will be surprised that that is a case we have thought of and provided against, and that is really why I rather deprecate criticism, and I think quite fairly. I think it is one of the greatest anomalies from the view of procedure that we should have not merely a second reading Debate, but a Committee discussion upon a Bill which cannot be introduced until the whole of these Resolutions are approved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire must congratulate himself upon some decision or other in this connection which would have a bearing upon some financial Bill which he is preparing in advance. I think he must shudder at the prospect if every one of the 1,500 duties he contemplates is to be criticised in this sort of microscopic way before we have ever seen them. That is why I ask the Committee rather to confine itself to general principles than to go into those minute discussions on machinery. Most of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's was directed to machinery.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: We wanted to know what the tax was.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We told the right hon. Gentleman over and over again what the tax was. I shall tell him again if necessary, but I shall only tell him the general principles unless he enables me to get the Resolution upon which to found the Bill, which will contain the whole machinery for carrying it out. I will take Another case which the right hon. Gentleman gave. First of all, he criticised us be-
    1874
    cause he said we were going in for a costly valuation, and he said that whoever else made money out of this the lawyers and surveyors certainly would. Then he went on to build up a great argument upon the assumption that all the valuations would be made by Excise officers. My answer to that is if he will just wait he will see that both those criticisms are absolutely irrelevant.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Who will do it?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord will know as soon as he sees the Bill. He will then get the whole machinery, and then he can bring his well-known powers of criticism to bear upon it. I only want to show that most of these criticisms have no reference to our proposals. The right hon. Gentleman asks: "Why do you not give us an elaborate detailed account of every one of your proposals?" I know exactly what would happen if we did that. Supposing I anwered the questions which have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite? Probably another hon. Member would ask what would happen in such and such a case. I might answer that, and then a third hon. Member might ask what is the machinery for such and such a case? The discussion has lasted a very long time already, but the natural result of taking that course would be that our discussions would never come to an end. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have the closure."] Yes, but I do not want to apply that if it is possible to do without it. I have been the victim of the closure so often myself that it is a very painful process for me to apply it. I will confine myself to answering the criticisms which have been directed to the general principles of these taxes, and in doing so I think I am acting quite in accordance with precedent.
    What are the criticisms? They have been confined to two points. The first is that it is unjust to single out a special kind of property, and apply to it a special tax; and the second is that it is impracticable to impose the tax. I will deal in the first place with the first proposition that it is unjust to select this special kind of property for this kind of tax. I am not going to refer so much to other countries, because the fact that they do it is no proof that it is just or unjust. Nevertheless, I think it is relevant when it comes to a question of practicability, although it is not relevant as to whether it is fair or equitable. I rather deprecate the assumption which underlies this criticism. I mean the assumption that we are taking

    1875
    somebody's property away from them. We are simply imposing a tax, and what is that tax? It is a tax of one halfpenny in the £ on the capital value, and amounts to a tax of one four-hundred-and-eightieth part. This is not the only country in which you have a property tax. In other countries there are taxes imposed upon capital value, and why should it be confiscation the moment you introduce the principle of a tax upon capital value in this country? That is all we are doing. We are simply imposing a tax of one four-hundred-and-eightieth part upon one particular kind of property.
    The only question is whether it is fair. That is a proper question to put to me, and I think I ought to answer it. Is it fair to single out this particular kind of property, and impose a tax of this kind upon that class of property when you are exempting every other kind of property in the Kingdom? I think it is for this reason. We are simply imposing a tax on a kind of property which is created not by the investment of its owner, not by his industry or his enterprise. [OPPOSITION cries of "Why?"] I will give the reason why, but I desire first to state my proposition. We are taxing the owner of this kind of property not upon something which he has created by his own capital or by his own industry, enterprise or foresight, but entirely upon that part which is created by the enterprise or industry of the community. If the owner invests money in agricultural land we do not tax it, because that is an investment. [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes, you do."] Hon. Members opposite may take it from me that our intention is not to impose this halfpenny tax upon agricultural land. Whether our proposals actually carry out that intention or not is a matter for criticism in Committee; but for the moment hon. Members must accept that as our principle. The community is in need of £16,000,000 for defence, for security, and for social purposes which are well known to all hon. Members of this House. I ask, under these circumstances, is it unfair that you should impose a tax of one four-hundred-and-eightieth part upon property which is created by the industry of the community itself? I do not think it is. The right hon. Gentleman has put forward cases of ground landlords who have spent a good deal of money, and he mentioned one case where £100,000 had been spent upon improvements on his property to bring it up to the point of being valuable land. I
    1876
    think that ought to be considered, and it would be necessary to the principle of our tax to impose this tax upon that property. Our principle is that you should tax on the part of the property which is created by the community, and not by somebody else.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: When a man has put that amount of money into a building enterprise which is admittedly risky, what would be a proper remuneration for his risk?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I understand the right hon. Gentleman fully realises that we are deducting all expenditure by the land-owner upon the property spent with a view of making it fit for building sites.
    Mr. REMNANT: Within what period?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid if I begin to give answers to these questions I should have to use all sorts of arguments even when they would not serve my purpose for the moment. I will take the case of a mine. In this instance—and I will make this concession to the right hon. Gentleman—a mine-owner spends a lot of money in developing his property. For the moment I think the right hon. Gentleman had better set this point on one side until he sees the provisions of the Bill. For the present I am taking the ordinary case of the mining royalty owner. I will deal first with the justice of taxing minerals where there has been no expenditure by the owner to develop the property. What is the ordinary case? It is the case of a rather barren waste piece of land not very valuable from an agricultural point of view. Somebody else spends money for developing it, and it is often a very speculative and risky enterprise, and there have been huge fortunes lost in opening up these lands, but not by the land-owner. But the land-owner comes in at this point. The Member for Mansfield corrected me in one particular, and it is a very important one. He pointed out that in most of these cases the land-owner demands ten times more than the real value of the surface for agricultural purposes. Supposing the operation is a success, what happens? The mine is open and the land-owner gets hundreds of thousands of pounds in the shape of royalties. If the mines close down for any purpose the land-owner continues to receive his dead rent. If the mines close down in consequence of labour troubles, or because trade is bad and the price of coal is not high enough to make it profitable for the colliery-owner to go on working the mine, the land-owner still insists upon having that dead rent.

    1877
    Let us look for a moment at the position of the three parties concerned in the mines. First of all there is the miner, secondly the colliery proprietor who has to sink his capital in the mine, and thirdly there is the land-owner. We all know what the miner gets. We all know that the miner is taxed upon his tobacco and spirits, and that is his contribution to this £16,000,000. The colliery proprietor has invested large sums in developing the property, and what does he do? He pays his extra 2d. upon the income tax, and I hope he will pay under the super-tax, and he deserves to. But he has to pay more than that, because, under a Bill carried by the late Government, he is liable to pay compensation to all miners who are injured in the mine, if there is an explosion which ruins his property. Now, what does the mining royalty owner do? He has risked nothing. He has made no investments and no industry, and there is purely the industry which the hon. and gallant Member says is a very hard one, namely, that of receiving. What is his contribution towards accidents, sickness, or death in the mines? The colliery owner, under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, bears the whole of that burden, and there is no contribution from the royalty owner. As a matter of fairness and equity, is it unfair to ask that man, who has risked nothing, when we are getting up a fund, to provide for the sickness of those miners, for death, for widows and orphans, and old age, to contribute one halfpenny in the pound?
    Mr. LYTTELTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes, under those circumstances, to tax the gotten minerals? The proposal in the Budget is ungotten minerals.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has made a great discovery. How could you get the freehold interest on the capital value of a mine except by a tax on ungotten minerals? I do not know any other way. The right hon. Gentleman may have a better way of doing it. That is what I am getting at. I think it perfectly fair that we should call upon the freeholder to make his contribution towards the expenditure of the nation.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the income tax?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Obviously he pays the income tax in common with the rest of the community.
    An HON. MEMBER: On capital?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know I am rather boring the House. I did cut out four or five pages from my Budget speech, on this subject which I should like to have delivered. It is quite clear that whatever I am taxing I am certainly taxing the patience of the House. Let me take the case of a leaseholder. Everybody knows from his own experience that in an industrial community you have to get houses for the workpeople near the works. Probably it is very poor land. It may be not. worth more than 4s. or 5s. an acre; but, as a rule, there is a ground rent of £2 a house. Land which used to produce 5s. an acre produces £50 an acre or more, and I say, as a matter of fair play and: equity, that when we are getting up a fund for old age pensions for workmen, including the very workmen who built the houses and made the land valuable, we should remember that the increase from 5s. to £50 should pay a contribution of ½d. as a. pension to these poor old people. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not accept that proposition. But if it was put to them in their private capacity I believe not only would they repudiate the idea of not taxing in such a case, but I should be surprised if they would not propose an increase of the taxation. The increment is; exactly on the same basis. I hope the hon. Gentlemen opposite will confine themselves to the general principle of the increment tax. What is it? Looked at from a practical point of view we find that it is-done in other countries. It is a perfectly just tax. It is an increased tax due to the enterprise of the community. Why should' the community, when the State is in need of money, not pay it? If we take it from-beer, we should have to put it on agricultural land. It is purely a question of the distribution of burdens. We are not creating burdens, we are distributing them. If I could not get £500,000 this year from a particular tax, I should have to get it by distributing the taxes amongst hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House who are interested in other property. On the whole, it is fair to make a distribution on men who are making something out of the enterprise of the community. Judging by Colonial experience, it is a Colonial preference.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increment-applies to land which has buildings on it?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The increment goes on all round. Take the ordinary transaction, as the letting of a house. The right hon. Gentleman must wait, he will have to wait for a fortnight. He will not have to pay for a fortnight.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: I shall have to wait.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; the tax will not be proposed before the next fortnight, but I wish here to refer to the experience of other countries. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the imposition of an increment tax as something so grotesque and so insane that it never before entered the mind of man until some novelist began to think about it. If he will refer to the experience of other countries he will find that it has been a great success. I believe that the Conservative party in Germany have proposed to extend it to imperial taxation, following the example of one of the greatest commercial cities in the world—that is, Frankfurt, and other cities like Hamburg and Cologne and two or three others. It has been such a great success in the great commercial cities of the Continent that they are extending it with practically unanimous assent of the inhabitants. So much for the practicability of the experience of other countries. Now let us refer to our own. I will confine myself to the taxing of ungotten minerals and building land. I will confine myself to two points. The land agent for an estate marks out the land. He says this is agricultural land, which is worth so much an acre, and this is building land, which is worth so much. That is done by the land agent in every case, and he values ungotten minerals. He does not value the royalty, but what he does regard is the landlord's interest in that particular point.
    Mr. LAMBTON: According to the market price of the day.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: A Daniel come to judgment! The market value is, of course, what we are asking for; we are not asking for anything more. Whenever building land and ungotten mineral land come into the market— —
    Mr. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman excuse me if I say that he is wrong in that statement. No mineral land is assessed, either for estate duty or income tax, unless a shaft has been opened.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where the land is leased you value it, but you are supposed to value it in the other case as well. They are supposed to do it by the law of the land, and if it has not been done it means the land-owner has escaped the duty imposed by Act of Parliament. That is a very serious charge.
    Sir E. CARSON: What I am saying is this, that since the death duties came into force in 1891 the practice has been, with the knowledge of the office over which the right hon. Gentleman now presides, only to tax the value of minerals in mines which have been opened. I say that if that has been done with the consent of the Revenue Department, which the right hon. Gentleman presides over, it is because it is impossible, and been found to be impossible, to put a tax on a mine which has not been opened and to estimate what the value is. It is not a question of the landowner escaping the tax.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it has not been done it is purely and simply because the Revenue officials have been under the impression in every estate which has passed that there has been no market value for the ungotten minerals, and if there is no market value then there is no tax. Let me take another point. The right hon. Gentleman said it could not be valued, but it is valued for the purposes of compensation. [Mr. LYTTELTON: "NO."] There is never any difficulty in getting at it in such cases, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover-square (Mr. Lyttelton) that the Government of which he was a member did it. I will give him the case in a moment and I think he will admit that his interruption is a little premature. Whenever there is a Lands Clauses case it is so easy to value. The expertness of the valuers depends entirely on the Act of Parliament they are working under. If the case comes under the Finance Act they cannot value either building land or ungotten minerals. But the moment you get a case under the Lands Clauses Act for compensation then their intellect mellows. It is undeveloped land under the Finance Act, but it is fully developed land under the Lands Clauses Act. Take the case of Rosyth. That is a case of considerable interest at the present moment. Its revelance is not merely naval. It is fiscal also. The case of Rosyth was a case in which the late Government gave £100,000 for the site. How did they value it? It had an agricultural value, as they discovered. It also

    1881
    had a mineral value. [Cries of "No."] I think the hon. Member for the Chelmsford division is quite right in warning his Friends not to pin themselves to their repudiation, as this matter was carried through by the hon. and gallant Member who only last night said it was impossible to value in these cases. Six years ago he was an extraordinarily clever man.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I never made any such statement as that it was impossible to value any property. I made an entirely different statement. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know, the valuation at Rosyth was made by a professional valuer in Edinburgh whose name stands very high amongst Scottish valuers. My statement was not that it was impossible to value a property, but that it was impossible to put a value to-day upon something which had no uniform value, and which you had to compare subsequently with a bit you sold which had not been separately valued.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. We are talking about ungotten minerals, and how we are to value them. At any rate, it is, a consolation to know that there is at least one Scotchman who can do it. I have no doubt it will be possible to find men in South Wales who can do it, and I should not be a bit surprised if men of other nationalities could also do it. What happened was, there was no mine on this property, but there were minerals, and for the purpose of valuing them, for a Government bargain, you pay compensation, getting the value fixed by a valuer of high standing.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: There never was a valuation of the minerals. In this case there was a large property in which there was a probability that minerals existed. What happened was this. The owner said: "There may be minerals, it is impossible to say." I think this is a point which is very germane to the discussion. In this case you have two free agents—a buyer and a seller. One wants to sell the property, the other wants to buy it. The owner of the property says, "There may be minerals here under my property, and I am not prepared to sell them to you unless you are willing to give me something for them." He is a perfectly free agent in the matter. The purchaser, too, is a perfectly free agent. It is open for him to say whether he will take the property or not on those terms. But in this case of Rosyth a definite valuation is to be imposed upon the property as a
    1882
    certainty. A tax is to be paid by the owner, whether there turns out to be minerals or not.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman; he has let the Committee see what there is in this. It is not merely the fact of their being, minerals underneath the property. Because of the mere possibility that there may be minerals, and because there is a possible chance of minerals being there, the Government said that that possibility was worth £17,000. If it is good enough for the landlord to demand £17,000 from the public under such circumstances, is it not equally good enough to justify the Government proposal to put a valuation on the same possibility? This throws a light upon a good many more things. In this case there was an allowance of 50 per cent, for compulsory sale. These are the official figures which I have had given me.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: They are wrong.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, they are-the figures given me officially. Then for destroying the amenities of the House there was another allowance of £15,000. But putting that all on one side, you have the fact that for minerals which have never been tested a charge of £17,250 was imposed upon the State. Surely it is absurd in view of that fact to say that you cannot value them for the purposes of taxation. I say it is a just tax, a fair tax, and a perfectly practical tax.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech with the usual sterotyped exordium which we have heard several times in the course of this Debate. He began by telling us that he does not mean to enlighten us upon any of those points about which we ask information, and upon which we need enlightenment. After all how is it possible to consider and discuss general principles unless we are liberty, at the same time, to discuss the application of those principles, and yet the moment you begin to show that not only are the principles wrong in themselves, but that the application of them is absolutely impossible, then the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says, "Wait till you see the Bill." When the right hon. Gentleman completed that stereotyped prelude which we have so often heard he indulged in those rhetorical flights in which he so especially excels, and then I think he was betrayed into certain inaccuracies. At any rate that was so on one or two points which struck me. Let us take the

    1883
    eloquent passage in which he alluded to those who on this side of the House he suggested were unwilling to contribute even ½d. in the £ as a pension for the poor old men who had helped to build the houses on and to create the wealth of these estates. I understood from that that this halfpenny in the £ is to be a tax not merely on undeveloped land, but on developed land—land on which houses have been built by these poor workmen to whose pensions were asked to contribute.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I certainly did not intend to convey that impression. Let me say at once that there is no intention of imposing his tax upon land built upon. Certainly not.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I am very glad to have that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, but then we are to understand that a beautiful passage in his speech really amounts to nothing at all. It was very eloquent, and no doubt will appeal in future very much to the electors of Wales. I should like to refer to a speech which was made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and his speech was really perhaps the most extraordinary that we have heard in this extraordinary Debate. The hon. Member really struck me as being almost alone in his views, because he combines all the doctrinaire theory of the old Radical party, yet I do not understand that he is prepared to go so far as the Socialists who sit below the Gangway Therefore, I look upon the hon. Member as quite, or almost unique in his views, and on that ground we always listen to him with the greatest possible interest. He set out in the beginning of his remarks to prove that the ion. Member for Preston was wrong in a great many of his facts, and he seemed to think in the course of his speech that he lad proved the hon. Member wrong, because he stated as a fact that he was wrong, but I never found that he supported that statement by any argument whatever, except in one particular instance, and that was that in a village which grew in population there ultimately came competition between professional men, and thereby the wages of those professional men were decreased by that competition, and, therefore, they gained nothing by the increase of the population. But surely that would not be the case. To take that one particular instance to show that there are other trades and other
    1884
    professions which have increment besides the land, it is infinitely clear that the result would be that owing to the action of the community the incomes of both those two professional men would increase. At all events, so far as my experience goes, it is by no means the case that where there are a limited number of professional men in a district they cut the throats of each other, but it is more probable that they would take advantage of the community end conspire together to keep up the prices. At all events, that is what barristers and solicitors have hitherto combined to do. I think the hon. Member, indeed I think everybody who has yet approached this question, has absolutely failed to show that there is such a difference between land and other property as would justify exceptional treatment as regards taxation. I quite agree, I absolutely agree, with what fell from the hon. Member for Preston, there is a difference in land to this extent, that if a particular piece of land is required by the community at large, then the community should be able to purchase it. That is the case now, and the Lands Clauses Acts have just been referred to. I think those are very proper Acts, and I think it is absolutely essential in any civilised community that any particular piece of land required for public purposes should be acquired, of course at a fair price. That point about the fair price was one which the hon. Member for Preston did not mention, but I am sure he meant it.
    That is one point; but otherwise it is absurd to say that land differs from any other forms of property. I think it has been far too frequently forgotten in the course of this Debate that land is exceptionally heavily burdened. Look at the position of local taxation alone; look how land and real property pay already nearly the whole of it—at all events, they pay 80 per cent, of the enormous revenue which is already raised for local purposes—the bulk of that falls upon the land already. Then land when realised already pays its fair share, and more than its fair share, I think, in the shape of income tax. For instance, if land is being developed, and when leases fall in, and when the income of the owner is increased, the income tax is increased. Again, the death duties must be borne in mind, and it is most essential to justify this tax that it should be proved that land is an exceptional form of property as regards taxation, and therefore it is justifiable to tax it more than any other kinds of property. This par-

    1885
    ticular increment tax, it seems to me, is a double tax. It is a tax on the income when it is realised, and this is the double part of the tax; it is not only a tax upon increment, but also upon capital value at death. Therefore it is another form really of a death tax, which certainly has to be paid at death, and which is also paid on transfer and on granting leases. The same result would be arrived at if an additional death duty was put upon land over and above other property. Supposing a death tax was being brought in, if it was proposed to put an additional duty on land and exempt other forms of capital, I think the injustice of it would become apparent to the whole House at once. It is merely because the same effect is being arrived at in a different way that it has the plausibility of appearance that hon. Members think it has. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued that it is quite easy in all these cases to arrive at a valuation. I wonder how it is easy to arrive at a valuation of the income tax. It seems to me that although at the second period, if I may so describe it, when the tax is collected, that although at that time the tax may be more or less definitely ascertained by what the property fetches in the market, the value in the first instance, when it is first valued for an increment account, is absolutely indeterminable. Therefore, you have in the first case, an absolutely artificial valuation, which is inapplicable; and, in the other case, you have the market value, and yet the unfortunate owner is to be asked to pay the difference between the two, one being calculated on the market information, and the other on the opinion of the valuer, which may be right or wrong, but which probably will be, in a great many cases, wrong, because there was no adequate means of deciding what the adequate value of that particular bit of land will be, because it cannot go into the market. What will be the result of this tax? It seems to me that, so far from having the result anticipated by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme of leading the cattle into Elysium fields, it will have the opposite effect. It will stop all the development of land; it will stop all speculative development of land or make it go slower.
    Who is going to buy a big estate outside a town, put money into it, and develop it, if they know that they have no hope of gain but only a prospect of suffering loss? I said "no hope of gain," but, of course,
    1886
    that is an exaggeration. I do not mean to say "no hope of gain," but they will not have sufficient encouragement of gain, but a more than sufficient discouragement in the way of loss. What compensates a man for risking his capital in what has been admitted to be this very speculative enterprise? It is because, if it comes off, it is probably a big plum, and he will make a good thing out of it; but, if you are going to deduct, first, 5 per cent., then 20 percent., and then 50 per cent., and if hon. Members are going to end by taking it all it follows that nobody who is not a lunatic will buy this property and put his money into the development of it. Therefore, hon. Members will find that it will be difficult to get building land developed. It will never be developed in advance, towns will live from hand to mouth, and, except when it is absolutely necessary, only will a certain amount of building land be taken in. I want to know, but I suppose we shall have to wait until we see the Bill—like we have had to wait on so many occasions—I want to know how the improvements which are due to the community and the improvements which are due to the owners, are going to be distinguished? It is a most essential and crucial point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer every time he gets up to speak assures us that he does not mean to take a single thing which belongs to the owner, or is due to his developments. How is he going to ascertain? Is he going to take the owner's word for it, or to make an elaborate investigation. Is he going to set up an ad hoc inquiry, or is he going to allow land-owners to employ valuers to see. It is difficult to know whether this tax is practicable or not, until we know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do with it. I should like to put another point before the Committee on this increment tax, and that is, that, taking the argument, which I strongly deny, for granted, that the increment is due to the community. Well, what community is it due to? Is it due to the community in that particular place where you propose to deal with the land in this way, or is it due to the general development of civilisation as a whole? I think hon. Members opposite would say that it is due to the general march of progress in that particular district which has made that particular bit of land valuable. Then, on your own principle, why does not the tax go to that district? It does not go there, it goes into the pockets of the Imperial Exchequer,

    1887
    which has had nothing whatever to do with improving the value of that particular bit of land. Take another case. Imagine that in this town, which we are considering, where this land is going to be taxed, a large factory owner comes and sets up his factory. He employs a great many more hands than he did before; he leases a great deal of property all about the town and so increases the value of the surrounding part of the town, and as a fact it is due to one large factory in that particular town, and owing to his coming there, that there is a great deal of the surrounding property improved. On your principle that the increment should go to the community which has earned it, the produce of that tax ought to go to the owner of that factory who has caused all that improvement in the value of the land. In that particular case you can trace the improvement from one direct cause, and yet by your tax you are giving it to a community which has had nothing whatever to do with creating that value at all. That seems to me to be an absurd proposition, and goes to show how ridiculous it is to say that there is any such thing as unearned increment which is properly subject to a tax.
    Mr. LUPTON: Does the Noble Lord mean to say that the protection of the Empire has nothing to do with the value of the land? This tax is to protect the Empire and to buy the eight "Dreadnoughts."
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Certainly, and it is sometimes done inadequately, but that has nothing whatever to do with the difference between one field and another. The difference is the difference of value between one particular bit of land which is equally protected by the fleet and another. It is impossible to say that there is any particular unearned increment which is properly the subject of a tax. Of course, there is unearned increment. No one will deny that a big trader doing business, say with America on wheat, profits and has profited enormously by the general advance of the community in the matter of communications. He gets a tremendous improvement owing to the fact of there being a cable or a telephone. That is unearned increment to him, and that applies to almost every industry which you can conceive. They all get an unearned increment by the general progress and the inventions which are the product of the community, but there is no particular unearned increment which refers to land,
    1888
    and which is therefore more particularly the subject of a tax, and therefore I think even on theoretical grounds the principle of this particular tax on unearned increment in the future absolutely breaks down.
    I should like to say a word about undeveloped land. That again is a double tax, and a more unfair double tax than any of the others, because it is a tax not on the realised income, but on the anticipated income. The land may be there, but as long as it is undeveloped—I do not know what undeveloped means, we have not heard yet—we may take it it is not bringing in any revenue to its owner. Then on what principle is it going to be taxed? Is it to be on the principle that you are going to compel him to make it bring in a revenue? If it is he is open to two things—either he will develop the land, that is build on it, or else he will sell it and allow someone else to build on it and take the risk of paying the tax. Which is he most likely to do? If he thinks the land is not ripe for development he is most likely to sell it rather than to risk building on it a lot of empty houses which will probably never be filled. Therefore, he will probably get out of the land as soon as he can and sell it. Hon. Members opposite may think that would be an advantage, but my contention is that the moment that land is sold and passes to the hands of the next owner the punitive effect of your tax will disappear in this sense, that it will no longer have the same effect upon the new owner as upon the old owner in inducing him to sell it or develop it, because naturally the new owner, in buying the land, will take into consideration the taxes which are put upon it. He will say, "If I buy this land and keep it for another 20 years, I shall have in the course of time to pay so much. The capital value of that sum to-day is so much, and I will deduct that amount from the price which I am prepared to give." Therefore, the new owner will come into the land practically as if the tax did not exist upon it, and the tax will be paid by the present owner, and no one else. So, if he sells it the whole practical effect of the undeveloped land tax will have disappeared; entirely. It is a severe burden upon the existing owner, and will not have any of those social reforming effects which hon. Members are so sanguine in anticipating for it.
    How is the Chancellor going to decide upon what land should pay the Undeveloped tax? There may be land in close

    1889
    proximity to a town which at one time might have been considered to be very valuable building land, but the course of events has made the whole town move out in an opposite direction, and therefore, though there might be a great possibility of the land being built on, every practical man would know it was not a likely speculation. In that case is he going to tax it as undeveloped land? Is he because the capital value does not exceed £50 going to tax the owner when he is getting only agricultural value from it, although he cannot develop it, and though he knows perfectly well that even if he puts it up for sale or puts it out on lease probably no one would ever buy it or be prepared to take it? That would be a monstrous injustice, and it only shows how a scheme of this sort may be plausible in appearance, but when its real effects are considered is absolutely unworkable and unjust in practice. Then what is he going to do about land which is called accommodation land? There is plenty of accommodation land near small market towns and villages which is let at 50s. an acre. Fifty shillings an acre at 20 years' purchase comes to £50 capital value. Is that going to be taxed as undeveloped land? No sane man would want to build on it. Everyone might be very well housed, yet because, in the parlance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is undeveloped the owner has to pay ½d. in the £ on some hypothetical value. It is that very kind of land which is being acquired, and has been acquired, for small holdings. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to put in a provision to exempt them, but if so hitherto he has given us an inadequate explanation of his proposals, and if the border-line is to be land of the capital value of £50, he has included a great deal of agricultural land which ought not to be called undeveloped land. It really does not matter to us what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's principles are or whether he wants to include it or not. All we have to consider is whether he does.
    I do not think it is necessary for us on this side to argue against the general proposition which is put forward by the Socialist party and which is so ardently supported by some hon. Members as to the ownership of land. I do not think it is necessary to answer such a speech as that of the hon. Member for Blackburn, because it is so transparently absurd to say that all the land in the country has been robbed from the people. It is really a proposition which can hardly be argued because of its manifest absurdity and its want of being based on any reason. Those who support that view rever give any reasons for saying so. They allude vaguely to the past. They quote very inaccurate history as a rule, and they try to make out that everyone who owns land in the country to-day has either been some robber who has filched it from the people who originally held it in common or else that it has been given to him for some corrupt service. They never seem to contemplate the fact that 90 per cent, of the land of the country has changed hands by sale over and over again since those dim historic days, and, therefore, the right to the land remains exactly the same as the right to any other kind of property. I do not think I could do better than quote what the late Sir William Harcourt said about that. He said at Oxford:—
    "I shall not discuss with you the unearned increment on the land. That is to my idea so illogical, so unreasonable, so perfectly unjust, and so absolutely philosophical, that it does not require refutation. Neither shall I inquire into the nature and origin of property in land. I am content to assume that a man's right to his land depends on the same principle as your right to the coat on your back, namely, that you have paid for it."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGErose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
    Question put: "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 120.

    Division No.98.]

    AYES.

    [7.45 P.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beale, W. P.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Agnew, George William

    Beauchamp, E.

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

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Alden, Percy

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cameron, Robert

    Astbury, John Meir

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Brace, William

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Branch, James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Barker, Sir John

    Brigg, John

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bright, J. A.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Cleland, J. W.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Clough, William

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hudson, Walter

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jardine, Sir J.

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

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jenkins, J.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Crooks, William

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Crossley, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Robinson, S.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lambert, George

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dillon, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lehmann, R. C

    Rose, Charles Day

    Duffy, William J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Rowlands, J.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Erskine, David C.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Seely, Colonel

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Essex, R. W.

    Maclean, Donald

    Sheehy, David

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Macpherson, J T.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Falconer, J.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

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

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maddison, Frederick

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Snowden, P.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Massie, J.

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gill, A. H.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Summerbell, T.

    Ginnell, L.

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

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

    Menzies, Walter

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Middlebrook, William

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Mond, A.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Montague, Hon. E. S.

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Tomkinson, James

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Morse, L. L.

    Verney, F. W.

    Gulland, John W.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walsh, Stephen

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Muldoon, John

    Walters, John Tudor

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Walton, Joseph

    Halpin, J.

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Wardle, George J,

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil)

    Myer, Horatio

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Napier, T. B.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

    Nicholls, George

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Nolan, Joseph

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nuttall, Harry

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Henry, Charles S.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Malley, William

    Winfrey, R.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Hodge, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Hogan, Michael

    Partington, Oswald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. J. Herbert Lewis.

    Hooper, H. G.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    1892

    1893

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, J.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Percy, Earl

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George B.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renton, Leslie

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Renwick, George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Sandys, col. Thos. Myles

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Seddon, J.

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Starkey, John R.

    Clark, George Smith

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Curran, Peter Francis

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Dickson, Rt Hon. C. Scott.

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

    M'Calmont, Col. James

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Whitbread, S. Howard

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Moore, William

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Fell, Arthur

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Forster, Henry William

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Question put accordingly, "That on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the following duties be charged in respect of land:—
    (i) A duty on any increment value accruing after the said date at the rate of one pound for every full five pounds of that value, the duty to be taken on the occasion of the transfer, or the grant of a lease of the land, and on the occasion of the death of any person where the property passing on his death comprises any such land, and in the case of land belonging to a body corporate or unincorporate on such
    periodical occasions as Parliament may determine;
    (ii) A duty on the value of any benefit accruing to a lessor by reason of the determination of a lease at the rate of one pound for every ten pounds of that value;
    (iii) An annual duty in respect of the capital site value of land which has not been developed for building or other purposes, and the capital value of ungotten minerals, at the rate of one halfpenny for every pound of that value."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 330; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 99.]

    AYES.

    [7.55 P.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barker, Sir John

    Brace, William

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Agnew, George William

    Barnes, G. N.

    Branch, James

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Brigg, John

    Alden, Percy

    Beale, W. P.

    Bright, J. A.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Brockiehurst, W. B.

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Brodie, H. C.

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

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

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Bennett, E. N.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Astbury, John Meir

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Burke, E. Haviland.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Byles, William Pollard

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Muldoon, John

    Cameron, Robert

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Myer, Horatio

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

    Napier, T. B.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Henry, Charles S.

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholls, George

    Clough, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Nolan, Joseph

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hodge, John

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Collins, Sir Win. J. (S. Pancras, W.)

    Hogan, Michael

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crooks, William

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Crossley, William J.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Malley, William

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Jackson, R. S.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Jardine, Sir J.

    O'Shee, James John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Jenkins, J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardigan)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Partington, Oswald

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

    Jowett, F. W.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Dillon, John

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lambert, George

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

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lamont, Norman

    Radford, G. H.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Elibank, Master of

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Erskine, David C.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Reddy, M.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Essex, R. W.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Esslement, George Birnie

    Lupton, Arnold

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Falconer, James

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Robinson, S.

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Ffrench, Peter

    Maclean, Donald

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Fullerton, Hugh

    M'Callum, John M.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Rowlands, J.

    Gill, A. H.

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Ginnell, L.

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

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Glover, Thomas

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Schwann, Sir ,C. E. (Manchester)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Seddon, J.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Seely, Colonel

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Massie, J.

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Sheehy, David

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Gulland, John W.

    Menzies, Walter

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Middlebrook, William

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Halpin, J.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mond, A.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Snowden, P.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

    Morrell, Philip

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morse, L. L.

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    1896

    1897

    Summerbell, T.

    Walters, John Tudor

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Walton, Joseph

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Watt, Henry A.

    Winfrey R.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Tomkinson, James

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Roberts.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Verney, F. W.

    Williams, W. Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Walsh, Stephen

    Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Anstruther-Gray, Major

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A. N.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, J.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Percy, Earl

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Haddock, George B.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Ratcliff, Major R. F.

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renton, Leslie

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Renwick, George

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cave, George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Keswick, William

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kettle, Thomas Michael

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clark, George Smith

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Starkey, John R.

    Cox, Harold

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Doughty, Sir George

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

    Fell, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move that you do now report progress and ask leave to sit again. I make that Motion alike as a protest against entering at this moment and at this time upon a new Resolution and as a protest against the way in which the Government are conducting their business. I do not think it would be possible to show less courtesy or consideration to the House of Commons than is shown by the present Government. What has happened? We had a Budget statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a fortnight ago. We have been asking for information as to what, not the details of his proposals were, not what was the machinery of his proposals, but what the proposals themselves were,
    1898
    what he meant to tax and whom he meant to tax. It was only between half-past six and seven o'clock to-night that the Committee learned for the first time, absolutely for the first time, what the intentions of the Government were as regards minerals and what they meant by ungotten minerals. They meant minerals which were in process of being got. And then the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the astounding statement which, as he tells us, was intended to have been included in his Budget speech, but that he left out six pages. How many other pages did he leave out, and why have we never been allowed to have in the course of the discussion, until the moment before he moves the Closure, the

    1899
    information which he had himself intended to give to the House on the Budget night? And what becomes of the excuses and the shifts to which he has resorted every day at Question time to evade answering the plainest questions or giving to the House such information as no Chancellor has hitherto refused? It has been the desire of other Chancellors [Some interruption] when the Government do not closure they might at least keep silence. They allow us a very short time to discuss measures or methods, and I think that at least subordinate Members of the Government might have the courtesy to allow us to use to the best advantage the little time their superiors give us. I say that the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in withholding deliberately from the House until the last moment information as to what his tax was and upon whom it was to fall, and then closuring the debate before there was an opportunity to reply to
    the new explanation reduces our proceedings to a farce, and I say it would be, if possible, a bigger farce still to enter now, or at 11 o'clock to-night, on an entirely new Resolution so important as the one that stands next on the Paper, and I, therefore, beg to move to report Progress.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE—
    Sir EDWARD CARSONrose in his place, and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 106; Noes, 302.

    Division No. 100.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gordon, J.

    Oddy, John James

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renwick, George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Cave, George

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Stanier, Beville

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Starkey, John R.

    Clark, George Smith

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Lowe, Sir Francis William

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Magnus, Sir Philip

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

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Marks, H. H. (Kent)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

    Du Cros, Arthur

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Fell, Arthur

    Moore, William

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Lord Balcarres.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

    Newdegate, F. A. N.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Astbury, John Meir

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

    Beale, W. P.

    Agnew, George William

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Belioc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Barker, Sir John

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Bennett, E. N.

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Barnes, G. N.

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Muldoon, John

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Boulton, A. C. F.

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

    Brace, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

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

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Branch, James

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Myer, Horatio

    Brigg, John

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Napier, T. B.

    Bright, J. A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Nicholls, George

    Brodie, H. C.

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Nolan, Joseph

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Burke, E. Haviland-

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

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Henry, Charles S.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cameron, Robert

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Hodge, John

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

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hooper, A. G.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Cleland, J. W.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    O'Malley, William

    Clynes, J. R.

    Horniman, Emslie John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    O'Shee, James John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Partington, Oswald

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Jackson, R. S.

    Philips, John (Longford, S.)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jenkins, J.

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Crean, Eugene

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Crooks, William

    Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crosfield, A. H.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crossley, William J.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Curran, Peter Francis

    Joyce, Michael

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, George

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lamont, Norman

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Reddy, M.

    Dobson, Thomas W.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Lupton, Arnold

    Robinson, S.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Roche, Augustine (Cork)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Roche, John (Galway, East)

    Essex, R. W.

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Maclean, Donald

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Everett, R. Lacey

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Rowlands, J.

    Falconer, James

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Fenwick, Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ferens, T. R.

    MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro

    M'Callum, John M.

    Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Findlay, Alexander

    M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

    Seely, Colonel

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Maddison, Frederick

    Sheehy, David

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fullerton, Hugh

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Gilhooly, James

    Massie, J.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Glover, Thomas

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

    Snowden, P.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Menzies, Walter

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Greenwood, Hamar (York)

    Middlebrook, William

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mond, A.

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Gulland, John W.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Summerbell, T.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mooney, J. J.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Halpin, J.

    Morse, L. L.

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    1902

    1903

    Thomasson, Franklin

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, W.)

    Tomkinson, James

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Winfrey R.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Walsh, Stephen

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Walton, Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. J. Herbert Lewis.

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

    And it being after a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 4.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS AND RETURNING OFFICERS' EXPENSES.
Mr. J. S. HIGHAM Mr. J. S. HIGHAM called attention to the question of the Payment of Members of this House and of the Returning Officers' Expenses, and moved:—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the non-payment of Members and the liability of candidates for the Returning Officers' Expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and election of Members of Parliament; and this House is of opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed before the dissolution of this Parliament, and coming into force upon or after the dissolution, should be accompanied by arrangements for the Payment of Members elected to serve in Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of the financial responsibility for the Returning Officers' Expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."
It is scarcely necessary that discussion on this Motion should be prolonged, and I hope that the Debate to-night will not be long, because of all the subjects which have been debated in this House there is not one which has been before us for so great a length of time as this one. I do not propose to go into ancient periods in regard to this question, though it is on record that in olden times Members were paid by their constituents, and sometimes I believe by the Imperial Parliament. But from that time there was a long interregnum, during which Members were not paid. But the subject still remained one of the features of political programmes. It was one of the prominent points of the Chartist programme, and later of the Newcastle programme. In 1830 a Bill for the payment of Members was brought forward in this House, now nearly eighty years ago, and in 1845 a resolution was carried in favour of the payment of Mem-
1904
bers of this House. In 1870 another Resolution was brought forward, but it only succeeded in getting 26 supporters. It is a remarkable example of the mutability of life that of the 26 Members who voted in 1870 the only one in this House to-day is my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. More remarkable still, he is the only survivor of the 26 who voted for payment of Members. In 1886, 1888, and 1892 this Question was again debated in the House. In 1893 it was carried by a majority of 47. In 1895, by a majority of 18. In 1904 it was defeated by 66; and in 1906, the last time we had it before us, it was carried by a majority of 238.
I think I was justified in saying that there is no other Question which has been for so long a time debated in the House of Commons, and out of it as well. Sometimes it has been coupled, as is the case with my Resolution, with the payment of returning officers' expensess; sometimes it has been discussed alone, and the payment of returning officers' expenses has itself formed the subject of Debate. In 1906 the two subjects followed each other on two consecutive nights as to the payment of returning officers' expenses in the Debate of 1906, the principle was accepted on both sides. Our Conservative Friends and hon. Members in every part of the House accepted the proposition of that night. I should just like to draw attention to the anomaly of this Question as to the payment of returning officers' expenses. Every local election, without exception, falls upon the local rates, upon the official expenses. It has been recognised in this House by every Act of Parliament which they have passed authorising the election of persons to perform municipal work, that the charge was a charge which would fall on the local rates. It would appear to be beyond controversy: If the bodies that had to do local work should have their election expenses paid by the local rates, then the body that had to do the national work, Parliamentary work, should have their expenses paid by the national exchequer. That would appear to be perfectly logical, perfectly

1905
clear, and perfectly reasonable. It carries with it another conclusion, which is not always so obvious. It is very regrettable, but it is a fact that Members of Parliament in their elections are looked upon as fair game to be shot at from every quarter in this matter of finance. We find great anomalies on this question of official expenses.
I have taken the trouble of going into the question in a borough with which I have been connected practically all my life in municipal work. When I was a member of that borough we purchased the whole apparatus in connection with election. They have there, roughly speaking, 10,000 electors, and the cost of a contested fight on 1st November in eight wards, with 10,000 electors, and two—and sometimes three—candidates in each ward is £90. That is £9, roughly, for 1,000 electorate, and, if we take the majority of boroughs in the country, the cost works out, roughly, at about that average. If we take the Parliamentary election, the figure is not £9 per 1,000 but an average of £30 per 1,000. It is easy to see how that arises when we come to the details. The schedule list for Parliamentary elections allows a payment of £4 4s., and sometimes five, where there is travelling to the presiding officer. The same man for municipal elections has a couple of guineas, and he sits in the same room and does the same work. The poll clerks in Parliamentary elections receive two guineas and over, according to the distance, and in a municipal election 15s. in the town I come from. There, again, we see the anomaly of separating the method of payment of the two elections. I do not think there is a, shadow of a doubt that if the official expenses of a Parliamentary election were put on the public authority to pay they would see the charges would be as reasonable sums as they have in all their own elections.
I was referring just now to the capital charged for the apparatus required for elections. In the town to which I refer we paid for moving polling booths and all the other apparatus £75, and I believe the majority of the Members of this House pay more than £75 for the loan of them every time they have an election. May I also point out that the £90 which I gave as the total cost of the borough election included conveying all the apparatus to and from the central store room. I do not think I need say more on the point of returning officers' expenses. I think the few figures
1906
I have given prove that the present system is not fair to Members of Parliament, is not fair to the local authorities, or to the country, and that the anomaly should not continue as between all those elections for parish council, district council, county council, and boards of guardians; every one of those authorities pay the expenses, and then in the Parliamentary election the candidate is left to bear them himself.
I pass on to the main point of my Resolution. Following up the historical argument I gave just now, one might say that the payment of Members is the law in, I believe, practically every English-speaking country in the world. Their agitation has been a much shorter one than ours, and they have achieved the results quicker than here. I think it will be impossible to find any leading man in those English-speaking countries who desire to abolish that which has been established there. They have little or nothing to say against it. It may have defects, but every method of working has. We do not pretend that anything will be perfect. They have no desire to abolish it, and they have expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the result of the payment of Members in those various countries. I would like to point out to the House that the Resolution to-night is drawn in terms of studied moderation. In 1893 the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons contained the word "forthwith." In 1895 the same word. In 1906 the Resolution moved by my hon. Friend the Member for the Wirral Division stated that the time had now arrived when Members should be paid £300 per year. I have not put in my Resolution any amount. I have not said it shall be done forthwith. I recognise a feeling amongst Members—a feeling which I share cordially—that such a change should be accompanied by a scheme of electoral reform and that it should not come into effect during the life of this Parliament. Another reason is that some Members of the House, and I share the view, do not care to vote that they themselves sitting in this House should have a salary attached to their sitting here. We think it is fair and reasonable we should go before the electors, and that the electors should know that the Government had indicated that from that date forward the successful candidate would be paid—I do not say for their services, but that they should be paid a sum of money to reimburse them for some of the expenses in doing the country's work in London.
There is another argument besides that of which I was speaking and from past history. We have present in the House hon. Members who would say they could not have come here dependent on their own resources. When they won the confidence of their trade union they have been appointed to positions in those bodies, and then those bodies have followed up that confidence with the additional confidence of having authorised them to use their money to do the work of the nation. I do not think there is a Member of this House in any portion of it but would say that the presence of these Members has done anything but good to the legislation and to the consideration of the measures which have become law since they came into this House from the time the Member for Morpeth came 40 years ago. Their services in the Debates, the arguments they have put forward, the knowledge they have brought to bear, have been of incalculable good in forming decisions and in helping the Government to formulate the measures which were needed for the working classes and for the general good of the whole community. I am quite aware of the argument that we all represent the working classes. It is quite true; but, still there is a peculiar way in which men coming straight from among those classes, who live amongst them, work amongst them, and mix with them almost every day of their lives, represent their feelings, their ideas, and their ideals better than Members like myself, who perhaps at one time were more closely connected with them than we are to-day. But the main point is that if it be right that an organisation should permit its officials to come here on the stipends which it pays them, and if those officials are doing good work for the country, it is doubly right that the stipends should be paid by the nation for whom the work is done.
I should like to take up certain arguments which are generally advanced against the payment of Members. It is said to be contrary to the dignity of the House, and that it would lower the standard of membership. In another connection we have had that argument ad nauseum, With every widening of the franchise the same thing has been urged; but I would say that with the continued widening of the franchise there was never a time when elections were purer than they are to-day, or when the people who exercised the franchise more strongly demanded purity in
1908
public57 life. There is a higher standard demanded in public life to-day than ever before. With the widening of the franchise the doors of this House have been thrown more widely open. In answer to this objection, as applied to the House of Commons, Mr. Gladstone used to say that throughout the many years which he spent in this House there had not been a lowering, but a gradual raising, of the standard and an improvement in the tone. I think the evidence of a man so eminent should carry great weight with us in arguing a subject like this, and in coming to a conclusion on it. In the days when the franchise was more restricted public life was more impure. There cannot be a shadow of doubt about that if we read the history of Parliament. When we read the correspondence of olden times we must acknowledge that among the electorate and among Members of Parlament there was not the high standard which exists to-day. I was reading some time ago the letters of Sir Robert Peel, and I found there a letter written by the wife of a Member of Parliament, in which she said that in a certain election more than £40,000 were spent through her influence alone. That is an instance of the sort of work that went on in a bygone day. The letter was written in September, 1841, by Mrs. Disraeli to Sir Robert Peel, and on the same day her husband wrote a letter asking for office. Further back still we are all familiar with the eminent man who said that he knew the price of almost every Member of Parliament. That was under the most restricted franchise of all, when it was impossible for any man, unless he had great wealth or was the nominee of a man of great wealth, to enter these doors. The times of greatest corruption have been the times when the autocracy have had great power. After the autocracy came the aristocracy, when things were better, but not much. We have hundreds of Enclosure Acts, by which men for their own class used their power in Parliament to rob the people of millions of acres of land. It does not lie in the mouths of these men to say that the widening of the franchise or the wider opening of the doors of this House leads to abuses or to legislation which they term class legislation—legislation which, if it be for a class, is for that class which forms 95 per cent. of the community. That portion of the community are people who are poor, though not necessarily of the labouring class. There are many men who have won their spurs in municipal life, not

1909
necessarily of the labouring class—literary men, writers, students of political economy, and students of the social problem—who, while they can afford to work in municipal life because they do not need to sacrifice their business in so doing, and who are doing the best possible work for their town or district, cannot come here, although men acquainted with them know that they would be an honour to this House, and would add to its dignity, and that their contributions to Debate would be of infinite service to the country. But they cannot come here because of the lack of some such system as is advocated in the Resolution. I am quite aware that this improvement is generally coupled with other reforms, such as the second ballot or the transferable vote. I agree that those reforms ought to be coupled together, but if we demand that all reforms shall come in at once we stand a chance of losing everything. One is bound to recognise that even the best Act of Parliament carries in its trail the necessity for another, and this proposal may have a similar result. But if we cannot get them together we should be content to have them separately, and I do not think that that should be a reason for delaying a reform which the country demands and which the House thinks the country ought to have.
Another objection is that if we begin to pay Members of Parliament we ought also to pay members of county councils, town councils, boards of guardians, district councils, and parish councils. My answer is that these men can do the work of their towns or districts without sacrificing their businesses, or leaving their homes, or incurring much expense. And really the argument is not one against the payment of Members of Parliament, but in its favour, because in these very towns and districts the councils, if they send members away from home on the work of the municipality, make a fixed allowance per day and travelling expenses, thus recognising the principle advocated in the Resolution. Another objection is that it would create a class of professional politicians. That, I think is a ridiculous argument. In every other walk of life the term "professional" is one not of reproach, but of honour. If I want a doctor I employ a professional man, not a quack. If I have a dispute and want a lawyer, I employ a professional man, and not a quack. If I want a farmer to carry out a rotation of crops I do not go to an architect, but to a professional farmer. If I want to build a house I
1910
employ a professional architect, and not an agricultural labourer. Thus in every other walk of life the term "professional" is an honour, and not a reproach; but in opposition to this Resolution the term: "professional politician" is used as one of reproach. A man cannot be a Member of the Government until he has studied his subject thoroughly and obtained a deep knowledge of politics. In that sense he becomes a professional politician, and his appointment is really a reward for hard service. I do not agree for one moment that the word "professional" is an objection, or that it can be used as a tenable objection against the Resolution. We ought to be able to learn from what has taken place in municipal life, and in the life of public bodies in the country owing to the wider franchise. Wider doors have been opened, and there is a purer life, and a more economical administration in consequence; and fairer and better work has been done by these bodies. From that I think we may have perfect confidence that if the doors of this House, which have hitherto been opened by a golden key, are thrown wide open, and capable men who have given good service—and if they have not means it means they will come in by sheer merit—are allowed to come in it will be an advantage all round. When we see what has been done by those authorities that I have quoted, I say that the adoption of this Resolution will help us to strengthen our hold upon the country, and the country will have greater confidence in the legislation we send from this House. I beg to move.
Mr. CHARLES FENWICK: I beg to second this Resolution. I shall endeavour to follow the example of the Mover, and make my observations within the shortest possible limit. I do not anticipate any opposition to this Resolution; certainly not from this side of the House. When I look at the benches opposite, especially at those above the Gangway, at the present time, I do not anticipate any serious objection from that quarter either. I speak the more confidently with regard to this side of the House having regard to what has transpired on previous occasions. It is just now 21 years since I had the honour of introducing to this House a Resolution similar to the one which we are now debating—that is to say, similar in principle. On that occasion I had the good fortune to be seconded by the present Secretary of State for War, ably supported in the debate which followed by Sir George

1911
Trevelyan—who, I regret to say, is no longer a Member of this House—and also just as ably supported by the late Mr. Gladstone. On subsequent occasions I had the honour of receiving support from the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who delivered a very able speech in support of this Resolution. So that, therefore, I am quite safe in assuming that we are not likely to meet with any serious opposition from this side. Since that time, whatever may have been the strength of the arguments in favour of the principle of the payment of Members, and of the payment of election expenses out of public funds, those arguments have grown stronger and stronger in my opinion as the time has gone by. Before the assimilation of the county with the borough franchise the duties of a Member of Parliament began practically towards the end of February, and ceased practically with the beginning of August. There was none of that running to and fro at that time such as there is now demanded from Members of Parliament. Our duties now may be said to be continuous almost from January to December. I do not regret that, nor do I deplore it. Indeed on the first occasion, 21 years ago, when I brought this question before the notice of the House I anticipated that condition of things, and I then said in my opinion the demand would become greater and greater upon the time and duty of Members. That is exactly what has happened, and what I expected would follow, from the assimilation of the county and borough franchises. Since that time also we have set up Grand Committees upstairs for the purpose of considering Bills. That is a change in our system of which I thoroughly approve, because I believe it conduces to the efficiency of our work; it conduces also to getting more work done in this House than otherwise would be the case. It is no unusual, no uncommon thing, for a Member of Parliament to be called upon to serve two days a week now upon these Grand Committees, and I have known other cases in which after a Member has given two days to Grand Committee work, he has been called upon for another two days a week to serve upon Committees on private Bills. That, it seems to me, is stress and responsibility which is now made upon private Members of this House which demands some consideration at all events from Parliament, or both from Parliament and the country itself.
1912
Let me say a word or two upon this question of official expenses. As a Methodist the terms of this Resolution appeal very strongly to me, because of the way in which it is divided and sub-divided. With respect to the question of official expenses, it seems to me, and it has always seemed to me, that this is a most reasonable proposal, a most reasonable demand, namely, that all official expenses connected with elections should be thrown upon some public authority, either upon the taxes or the rates in the local districts. Certainly they ought not to be thrown upon the individual candidates in the election. A General Election at the present time involves an expenditure creeping up to nearly a quarter of a million. At the last General Election the official expenses were returned at over £200,000. That may be taken to be something like the ordinary expenditure; but it is a growing expenditure. It is an expenditure which increases from time to time with each General Election; and that is what we ought to expect, and might reasonably expect, in consequence of the addition to the electorate throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
I remember that in 1886 we discussed the question of election expenses for certain constituencies in Ireland. This dealt with the question of municipal elections. It was sought—by the present Member, I think, for North Louth—by the introduction of a Bill to reduce, not to abolish, official expenses connected with municipal elections in Ireland. As the Bill was passing through Committee, Mr. Labouchere succeeded in carrying an Amendment, the effect of which was to put an end to all official expenses so far as candidates were concerned. The House may be interested to know that when the Bill went to another place—a place where Members do not have to stand either the racket of an election or the expenses of contested elections—that reasonable condition was struck out, or Ireland would have been at the present moment in the enjoyment of having its candidates freed from having to pay the official expenses of an election. I have said that these expenses are increasing from election to election. Let the House bear in mind that they are expenses over which the individual candidate has absolutely no control. We may control our other expenses. We may not distribute literature, we may not hire committee rooms, we may dispense with hundred and one things which occasion expenses at the election, but here in the official expenses

1913
we have absolutely no control, and I submit to the House that any attempt to condone this condition of things will be, in my judgment, condoning what is practically a system of political blackmailing upon candidates who stand for elections in this country. I can put my own experience forward as a proof of how official expenses are increasing election after election. In my own first election the official expenses were £271; in the last election they were £391 18s., or nearly £392; and if we had an election tomorrow, which I do not think is very likely, we would find them very much increased as compared with the times of the last General Election. I say these are expenses, whether we consent to pay Members or not, which ought not to be thrown upon the individual candidate, and on that subject I agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution, that there is practically no opposition upon either side of the House. Besides, it is an expense that no one would ever dream of putting upon a candidate for a borough council, or a county council, or a district council, or a parish council. It is only when you come to deal with representatives in this House that a candidate who stands for the honour of election is deemed fit game to be fleeced all round. Now with respect to the question of the payment of Members, here again I think it will not be denied that the House has already recognised the principle; but we have to complain of the miserable restrictions imposed. We have restricted payment within an all too narrow area. I do not merely refer to the payment of the Members of the Government—Cabinet Ministers, Under-Secretaries, and such like—we admit the principle by the creation of new pensions, particularly at the end of each Parliament. When Ministers are going out of office it is the invariable practice to provide and to safeguard the interests of their Friends. We had a miserable example, as I consider it, of this practice at the end of the last Parliament. I remember reading a letter from Mr. Gladstone to a correspondent, in which he said:—
"I cannot feel well satisfied with the state of things in which gentlemen of high birth or station receive pensions for public service on the ground of insufficient means, and Members of Parliament, elected by labouring men, have to be returned and supported by contributions out of their daily wages."
And after all, when an ex-Member has received his pension and passes into opposition, no matter which political party to which he belongs, he becomes a private Member of this House as much as any other
1914
Member unattached to the Government. During the period he was in office he received his ordinary salary and the emoluments associated with his office, and when, he passes into Opposition it seems to me a ridiculous thing that he should continue to draw from the public funds of the country a salary in the form of pension for his political services. If the House will permit me I should like to make one quotation from the excellent speech delivered by Sir George Trevelyan in 1888 on this very point. He then said:—
"To grant political pensions, and to refuse to pay members of Parliament in the same circumstances as the recipients of political pensions was the ne plus ultra of anomaly."
I agree emphatically with the declaration of Sir George Trevelyan. We have had one very plain example as to Members receiving pensions up to the time of their death, and on dying leaving huge sums of money behind them. There was one case which happened during my time—I shall mention no names—during the period that I had the honour of a seat in this House, where the recipient up to the time of his death was in receipt of a handsome pension, and when he died it was found that he left wealth close upon £100,000. Yet, forsooth, if we ask for a small and reasonable indemnity for private Members of Parliament, we are told it would tend to lower the dignity of the Houses of Parliament. I do not believe that would be so. It is often said, "Why should you pay Members of Parliament when you can obtain any number for the public service gratuitously?" My answer to that objection is simply this: If you confine yourselves to purely gratuitous service you are limiting to a very large extent the area of your choice in the selection of candidates. You are compelled almost to take your candidates and your representatives either from the leisured or the wealthy classes, and why, I ask, is the labouring class the only one which has to tax itself under our present conditions in order to find representation in this House? That is practically what it comes to. If we are to have Labour representatives in this House, labour must put its hand into its own pocket to tax itself with its already limited resources in order to provide for the maintenance of its representatives in the House of Commons. I have here a Return which was issued at the beginning of this Parliament. It is a Report from His Majesty's representatives abroad setting forth the remuneration of Members of Parlia-

1915
ment in foreign States. This Return was issued in pursuance of an address to this Parliament in 1906. This Return, which was presented to Parliament through the Foreign Secretary, shows that in almost every country in the world Members of Parliament are either paid salaries or are provided with travelling passes all over the country, and particularly from their places of residence on the opening and prorogation of Parliament. Even the poorest of the States recognise their right and their responsibility in this respect, and yet we, one of the richest communities in the whole world, refuse to recognise the principle in its fullest sense. Well, I think that the time has now passed when we can no longer ignore the national responsibilities which rest upon us for remunerating or indemnifying in some reasonable form Members of Parliament for the service they render so fully and so willingly in the interests of the State, and recognising the justice and the reason of this principle I have the greatest pleasure in seconding the Resolution moved by my hon. Friend.
The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lewis Harcourt): I believe that there is a widespread feeling that those who generally occupy the Treasury Bench have occupied during the last fortnight a fair share of the time of this House. I shall not, therefore, trespass unduly upon the attention of hon. Members tonight. I rise early in the Debate first of all in order to express the appreciation which I think all who have listened to this Debate must feel for the two very moderate, interesting, and exhaustive speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Wansbeck, the latter of whom has indeed been a pioneer of the Question now before the House. Both the main proposals included in the Motion now before us have been discussed during the present Parliament, which probably accounts for their appearance before us as something in the nature of a compound Motion. It is not, of course, a Government Motion, and the Government desire to leave a full discretion to the House in regard to any decision at which hon. Members may arrive in the matter. Speaking for my friends on this side, and for those who sit on this bench as well, I think it would be safe to say that probably all of us are pledged to the payment of returning officers' expenses at elections out of public funds,
1916
and a very large majority of us are equally pledged to the policy of the payment of Members.
The opinion of the Government upon both these Questions has been clearly expressed during this Parliament. It is a melancholy recollection that the spokesmen on both these occasions have been taken from us. The Question of the payment of returning officers' expenses was dealt with by the late Sir John Lawson Walton, and the Question of payment of Members was dealt with by the late Prime Minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Both those speeches are within the recollection of the House, and it is only necessary for me to state briefly the position of the Government. I will deal first with the least contentious part of this Motion which relates to the payment of election expenses. I might call it practically non-contentious, because when this Question was discussed two years ago I believe the Motion was passed without a division and without being challenged by the unanimous assent of the House, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's Division represented the Opposition, and supported the proposal which was then made.
There are, I think, in relation to the payment of election expenses, two matters which the House will do well to reserve for further consideration. I notice that there has this year been a slight alteration in the terms of this Motion. I believe on a previous occasion two years ago the words employed in relation to the payment of election expenses were "public funds." To-day, I notice those words have been altered to "Imperial Exchequer." On the previous occasion the words "public funds" were deliberately inserted in order to leave it an open question for the consideration of the House, and it was so treated by many of those who spoke in the Debate. When I vote, as I shall vote, for the Motion this evening, I shall do so without prejudice as to whether the fund for the payment of election expenses shall come from local or Imperial sources. Lord Randolph Churchill, in supporting this proposal, suggested that the expenses should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Experts of the standing of Sir Henry James and Mr. John Morley desired that the charge should fall upon the locality. I know very well the strength of the arguments both ways on this matter, and I think the House will do well

1917
to leave the consideration of that important detail to a future time when we come to the Bill itself.
There is one other matter in relation to returning officers' expenses which ought to be in the minds of hon. Members, and that is the absolute necessity, in my view, if you are to carry out this proposal, that you should make some provision against bogus candidates. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Augustine's Division suggested that there should be a deposit of caution money, which should be forfeited if the candidature proved to be frivolous. I am not sure what would be considered a sufficient proof of frivolity. I do not know whether failure to secure a certain percentage of the votes recorded would be considered sufficient to ensure the forfeiture of the deposit money. There are others, and I should number myself amongst them, who would sooner see this question approached through the medium of proposals either in the direction of a second ballot or what is called the transferable or the alternative vote. I am not going to discuss those proposals to-night, because, in the first place, they do not appear in the Motion, and, secondly, we have a Royal Commission sitting to inquire into the matter. I wish, however, to say this word of warning, that if you are to pay the expenses of the returning officer you must have some provision of this kind. I think there is a general unanimity in the House in favour of this part of the Motion, which has been accepted by every party, and it is already the fact that in local and county council elections the expenses are paid by the locality. Many of us have long felt that the liability of candidates for the payment of returning officers' expenses is a remnant of the old and bad property qualification.
I will now pass for a few moments to the more contentious part of this Motion. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, standing at this box two years ago, said, on behalf of the Government, that he cordially agreed with this principle, but he also added that he found himself subject to limitations both of time and money. I am sorry to say that we find ourselves no less short of either of those commodities. As to time, the situation is somewhat eased by the terms chosen by my hon. Friend in his Motion. He proposes to postpone until the introduction of a general Reform Bill the dealing with this specific matter, and, as we are all well Aware, a general Reform Bill is more appropriate to the end of a Parliament, a date
1918
which is still somewhat remote. As to money, I shall be able to inform my hon. Friends better on that question after the passage of the Finance Bill, and again still better at the conclusion of the present financial year. In the financial exigencies of the country I could not pledge the Government to make this provision under present circumstances, because I assume that when we carry this, in my view, desirable proposal, we shall pay all Members. That was the opinion expressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the year 1892, and I think it would be monstrous to introduce a poverty test into this House. What I want is equality of treatment and no invidious distinction between individuals. If you are to pay a sum of £300 a year to every Member of Parliament that would require a Vote of, roughly speaking, £200,000 per annum, which, of course, is a material consideration to every Chancellor of the Exchequer. At all events, I am and always have been a warm advocate of this policy. I have never been able to see why politics should be the only profession run by unpaid amateurs. I am not afraid myself of a professional politician. I am one myself, and I am bold enough to say that I glory in it. I believe that the proper meaning of the term is one who devotes his life to the profession which he happens to have selected. The time has passed when you can draw your legislators wholly from a leisured class. I feel no degradation in drawing a salary for my work. I believe that public service deserves public pay, and I do not believe that you make a man corrupt by giving him a fair wage for honest work. The Member for West Birmingham supported such a proposal as this as long ago as 1885, because he realised that the extension of the franchise required it. This system has worked well in all our Colonies and I believe in every civilised country in the world. It has been said that poor men are more exposed to temptation than rich men. That may be true, but I am not sure that it is equally true that the resistance of one class is greater than the other. The former payment of Members lapsed when corruption came into Parliament. When pickings were many honest men were scarce; salaries were then a drop in the ocean of ill-gotten gains. I am happy to say that the times have changed. I think we can trust a constituency to distinguish between a needy adventurer who is seeking a salary and the

1919
man of small means who is deserving a seat in this House. It is not a case of beati possidentes. The old prejudice against voting salaries to ourselves is removed by the terms of the Resolution, which suggests that the proposal shall only operate on or after a dissolution. Any action, therefore, which we take now will only be an act of generosity to our successors. The object of all electoral law has been to obtain a genuine and straightforward representation of the people. Can it be suggested that you get that representation by asking a man not what is the record of his character, but what is the capacity of his purse? I believe that a reasonable subsistence allowance would give a freer choice to a constituency. I think it would broaden the basis of your representation by introducing the qualification of brains rather than of wealth. I agree with the Committee which sat on this subject 130 years ago, and expressed an opinion in favour of the payment of Members, on the ground that it would be "a return to the wholesome practice of former times." I shall vote with great pleasure for this Motion, but I should not support it if I did not believe that it would conduce to the honour, strength, and character of the House of Commons, because I have hereditary veneration for this Assembly.
Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I desire, in the name of my colleagues, to associate myself with the Motion now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to what he characterised as the changed position of this Question so far as the Labour representatives are concerned. I wish to assure him and the House that, so far as organised labour is concerned, there has been no change. For many years, almost throughout the whole time that the Trade Congress has existed, one of the first articles in its programme has been the Motion before the House. I can go further. I think I am right in saying that every labour organisation at the conferences which have the right to speak for organised labour, and even the conferences of the Social Democratic Federation, has treated this question as one entitled to a foremost rank in their programmes. It may be that there have been one or two Members associated with me in the Labour party who have given expressions of opinion which support the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not think they express the opinion of organised movements,
1920
whether political or Labour, with which they may happen to have been associated, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept from me the assurance that never were we so strong in our opinion in the justice of the two points contained in this Resolution than we are to-day. When we come to examine the Resolution there are two points dealt with—first of all, we have that most curious anomaly of separating Parliamentary elections from all other elections that take place in this country, and imposing on candidates in Parliamentary contests those legitimate machinery expenses which in other contests are made chargeable to the public funds. I venture to say it would be well-nigh impossible to find anything more anomalous.
I do not know that we have given sufficiently serious attention to the magnitude of the charge which is really imposed. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures of the last General Election, and I find that the total cost of the election was £1,166,858 13s. 2d. Of that amount £206,334 18s. represented actually machinery expenses, made up under some of the following heads:—Cost of providing ballot papers, dies, boxes, and official placards, £21,786 17s. 1d.; presiding officers, clerks, and counters, £81,678 8s. 7d.; preparing and publishing notices and making returns to the Clerk of the Crown, £11,836 3s. 4d.; fees of returning officers or their representatives, £24,978 11s. 11d.; conveyance of ballot boxes and travelling expenses incurred by those in charge (as well as expenses of presiding officers and clerks), £12,433; cost of polling stations, money the most of which goes into the pockets of the local authority, £35,634 13s. 8d.; and supplying nomination papers, without which an election cannot possibly take place, no less than £2,000. When we come to look into the details we find that in cases like Romford each of the candidates had to subscribe £650 for these purposes; at Walthamstow, £525; in the Wansbeck Division, £391; in the Tyneside Division, £370; in the Wimbledon Division, £360; in South Glamorgan, represented by another miners' representative, the fund for whose maintenance has to be provided also out of their own money, £343; and in the Constituency in which I reside, £385.
May I bring this further point before the House? Two hundred and fifty candidates at the last election had to table over £250 each before the election could proceed, and every bit of that was spent for purely election machinery. It seems to me

1921
that the case for this part of the Motion is so strong that I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way clear to make a more definite statement to-night. I think we ought to have an assurance that no other general election shall take place in this country without this unfair and unjust charge imposed upon candidates ceasing and ceasing finally. The Government ought to give us an assurance that this course shall be adopted. I think we have a right to expect them to give it. When I made a Motion in similar terms five years ago, I had the unqualified support not only of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but of the present President of the Local Government Board, the Postmaster-General, the Solicitor-General, the Home Secretary and his Under-Secretary, and the Foreign Secretary, and I shall never forget the interesting speech delivered on that occasion by the present Foreign Secretary, for it was about the most lucid explanation and statement of the position that I think it was possible for any speaker to put before the House. I also had the support of the Minister for War, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the President of the Board of Education, and of the Lord Advocate. Having regard to the volume of the support that we secured for our Motion five years ago from the right hon. Gentlemen I have named who were then in Opposition, it seems to me we have a perfect right to have expected something more definite than the statement which the First Commissioner of Works has given us to-night.
I expected this, too, for another reason. I may say that the Motion which is before the House to-night is somewhat altered in its terms compared with the Motions which have been moved during the six years I have had the honour to sit in this House. All previous Motions have run on the lines that the payment shall take place forthwith. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has acted wisely in taking the course he has by seeking to commence the operation of both payments after the next dissolution of Parliament, and having regard to that I would have thought it would have made the course absolutely clear for the spokesman of the Government to have given us a very definite assurance that the Motion would be accepted in the sense that steps would be taken between now and the General Election to have it put into operation so far as arranging for the payment of Returning Officers' expenses is concerned, and also accepting the
1922
obligation to make payment to Members of Parliament consequent on their return at the next General Election. I think, so far as the question of the payment of Members itself is concerned, it is almost unnecessary to argue it further. We shall all admit the cogency of the arguments adduced, and it seems to be ridiculous for us in this country to argue and agitate, as has been done so long for the extension of the franchise, giving by that a fuller, clearer, and more definite representation, so far as election matters are concerned, and then, when those who elect want free and unfettered expression of opinion in this House by their own representative, be he shopkeeper or working man, no matter what he be, if he is considered to be the best choice, the best fitted to be the mouthpiece of their opinions, it savours, I say, somewhat of giving with the one hand in the shape of the franchise, and withholding with the other by not giving a clear course right through into the House of Commons. I remember when making my Motion five years ago I endeavoured to put forward this point, that it seemed to me the payment of Members was really the corollary of our present educational system. We have been improving our educational system. We have been going in for free education. We have been giving scholarships, and have tried to remove the poverty that might rest upon a boy by giving him the best educational facilities possible. Surely it is not right if that boy, having succeeded through the free educational system and the scholarship system which very happily obtains, should fit himself for a political career, that merely because his parents are not in a position either to provide him with the full amount for election expenses, or to provide for his maintenance in the event of his being returned to Parliament—surely it is again retracting a portion of that which we have already given to the youth of our country if we prevent them having an open door into the highest position that can be offered in connection with the Mother of Parliaments. We have been reminded to-night that nearly all the other countries of Europe, our Colonies, and America have taken this step long ago, and I have yet to learn that any of them are at all anxious to go back upon the decision that they came to when they set this machinery in motion. I am well aware that it has been said, and we have been reminded of it to-night, and it was freely stated on the discussion of my Motion, that we are going to open the door to professional politicians. I suppose the nearest

1923
analogy to the professional politicians in this country would be the Members who sit in this House as the paid representatives of the great trade organisations. I suppose, because they receive from their trade unions their maintenance allowance, and in some cases a salary amounting to £200, £300 and £400, they would be regarded as the nearest approach to the professional politician, unless, of course, there is to be included in that category the heads of the Departments and the Under-Secretaries who adorn the Front Bench, whichever Government be in power. Let me take either case, whichever party is in power. Is it going to be suggested that the Gentlemen who occupy that Front Bench are less effective and less honest because they receive payment for the services that they render to the State? I do not, moreover, think that I shall be going too far, in trying to make the point, that my hon. colleagues here and my hon. colleagues opposite, who are in exactly the same position, as far as their trade unions are concerned, are not the less earnest in their application to Parliamentary work because they are paid, and, indeed, I would venture to say that there are few Members who give themselves up to that work with such diligence as do the Labour representatives in the performance of the work which their Constituents have sent them to perform. That, surely, destroys the argument that if we introduce this payment from public funds, local or Imperial, it is going to introduce something in the nature of professional politicians, who will not be able to give pure, and shall I say devoted, service both to their Constituents and to the country. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Government, in accepting the Motion, will be prepared to see that it is put in operation on and after the next general election. I do not want to insist that we should merely ask for this as a piece of patronage to the Members who may be affected by the decision in the case now pending. I have never thought of asking for that. I defended this position long before I became a Labour representative, or thought of being a Labour representative in this House, and I speak in favour of almost all Members of Parliament. We do not want this to be put in operation as a piece of patronage to the Labour Members. We ask for it because we think that it is right that every constituency should enjoy the free and unfet-
1924
tered choice of its representative in this House.
Sir WILLIAM BULL: I am somewhat sorry that the Motion should include two different things—one the payment of returning officers' expenses and the other the payment of Members. With regard to the payment of returning officers' expenses I am at one with the mover of this Motion. I think that is a thing which has been carefully considered now, and all the arguments are in its favour. I would go further in regard to registration expenses. I think we could very well put upon the local authority or the State the whole cost of the machinery, which at present candidates have to indulge in order to get the register amended. The way at present in which men are left off the register and both parties have to go to great expense to put them on, is an anomalous state of things which should be swept away. I cannot help thinking that a paid official, paid by the local authority or the State, should be responsible for putting everyone on the register, and that would be a move in the right direction. But when I come to the payment of Members I am afraid I am at issue with the hon. Members who moved and seconded this resolution. In this world there is more done for love than for money. ["Oh."] I believe that if a careful account were taken of all the labours performed in this world, the labours of a father on behalf of his children, the labours of the mother, the brother, the sister, and friends, and all the various work that is done in this world on behalf of our fellow creatures, I think you would find the balance would be in favour of the work of the world which is done for love. Why are you going to stop that? Why are you going to start this payment of Members? There are 670 Members in this House, and I believe the general impression is that the sum which we ought all of us to receive would be £300 a year, but why are you to stop at Parliament? What about the county councils? I believe there are 120 members of the County Council in London, and I do not think we could insult them by suggesting that they should be paid, when we have fixed the price of the Members of Parliament at £300—that they should receive for services almost as great less than £150 a year. Then there are county councils throughout the country and the borough councils. I think the borough councils may perhaps do with £100 a year. Then there are the Justices of the Peace

1925
who perform various duties throughout the country, and I think they should receive at least £150. In addition you have the urban district councils, I suggest at any rate they ought to be paid £50. Then there are a very large number of Conservators throughout the country, and there are the parish councillors. I think their remuneration should be £50 a year. Then there are guardians; I think they should get £100 a year. I had prepared a careful statement showing exactly the numbers of these various persons, and I made a careful sum of what it would cost the country. I have not that list of figures with me, but I believe there are 500,000 people who serve on the various boards, and if you take an average of £50 a year, it comes out at £25,000,000. I have omitted jurymen. There is another valuable service rendered to the State for which no payment is made, and they certainly ought to be included. In times gone by, when Members were paid by the local authorities, there were several cases in which it was not considered by any means an honour to be represented in the House at all. I think it was the city of Colchester in the time of Queen Elizabeth which rendered some service to her in fitting out a ship for the Armada, and she said she would grant any reasonable boon they liked to ask. The Mayor and Corporation met together and thought the matter over, and prayed to Queen Elizabeth whether she would not allow them to be free from having to send a Member to Parliament for the space of three Parliaments. I believe that was granted, with the result that Colchester was quite satisfied and happy without having any representative at all.
The Leader of the Labour party said he did not think there were professional politicians in other countries. I do not know whether he has travelled much, but I think if he had brought his usually acute mind to examine into the question of America and elsewhere, there is a very distinct class of professional politicians, who outwardly avows the fact that he goes into Parliament for what he can make. That is a distinct drawback, because the better class of American holds entirely aloof from politics, because he does not consider politics are clean. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is why they are Protectionists."] I hear the right hon. Gentleman who was in favour of the payment of returning officers' expenses when in opposition does not seem to be in favour of it now that he is in power.
Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Baronet is quite mistaken. I voted in favour of it three years ago when it was moved in this House.
Sir W. BULL: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has not evidently given a very encouraging reply to that part of the speech. He has not been able to promise that the Government will do anything in this direction, though he may possibly at the end of this Parliament make some alteration. I hope and trust it will be a very long day before Members of the House are paid.
Mr. W. H. LEVER: As one who had the honour of moving this Resolution three years ago I support it again to-night. In doing so I wish to express my regret that the Chief Commissioner of Works has given the same official reply that we received three years ago. The proposal is declared to be equitable and necessary, but for some reason or other, sometimes one reason and sometimes another, it is at the moment inopportune and impossible. There never was a time when a poorer excuse could be put forward. We are told we are short of money. Any of us on this side of the House who have welcomed the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot help but see that those proposals carry with them an adequate provision of finances for every responsibility which we have to face. So far from being inopportune from the point of view of money, it never was more opportune than when the House is asked to provide means for putting the Government of the country on a better footing, doing our duty to the aged poor and protecting this country by ample provision for defence. I think a provision of something under 2d. a head of the inhabitants of the country would provide payment for Members on the scale of £300 a year. To me it is a great surprise and a great disappointment, because I had felt that before this Parliament rose we should have had this measure passed. I remember the then Member for the City of London raised the point three years ago that it was not within the power of this House to pass such a Resolution as this without immediate dissolution, or I am not sure whether he would even admit that that would give us the power. It would seem to me that the Bill must be so worded as to make it well within the province of this House to pass such a Bill at that or at any time and still to be within the Constitution. The wording of such a Bill

1927
would be to this effect, that after the passing of this Act every Member returned to sit here should receive a sum of money to be specified in the Bill. That would leave all existing Members who voted for it absolutely cut off from any participation in it until after the passing of the Act they again appealed to their Constituents. It was mentioned to me by a friend with whom I discussed it that that would be unjust, because Members would return to the same Parliament after the passing of the Act and would be paid. I venture to reply that any Member who felt perfectly certain of being returned, and whose election expenses would not be greater than he would receive, could immediately appeal to his constituents and come back as a paid Member. Therefore there would be no injustice to any Member. I do feel that if we are to put off this reform and other reforms until a dissolution of Parliament there will be a great danger of some of these reforms, and especially the payment of Members, being overlooked or neglected, so that when a new Parliament comes together we shall find ourselves in the present position.
I wish to point out that this is not a matter alone affecting Labour Members. I claim that it affects Members in every position in this House. I think there is nothing more degrading to a Member returned to this House than being in doubt whether he is selected for his worth and for his desire that he should serve his country, or whether he is selected because he can afford to pay his election expenses. We want that point put entirely at rest. We want the Constituencies to have a free choice, and to be able to choose a working man or any man living in the district or out of it in whom they have sufficient confidence and whom they desire to send here. After that we can all feel that we meet here the absolutely free choice of our electorate, and that we come here with a distinct mandate and command to attend to the business of the country, and to that alone. I quite agree with the hon. Member the Leader of the Labour party in his remark that the payment of Members will not make them less honest. I am quite certain that, so far from having that effect on the Members of the Government, payment makes them feel their responsibility more, and makes them all the more desirous not only to live up to the honour of the position they occupy, but to live up
1928
to the responsibilities which the receipt of a salary places upon them. The receipt of a salary would put on every one of us a sense of responsibility which we do not now feel. We feel that we give our time and our best efforts, and that we receive no payment for our services, and in consequence of that we are more or less free agents. As to the question of the payment of members of town councils, and so on, it has already been pointed out that there is no parallel between the payment of Members of Parliament and the payment of a member of a town council. In the one case a man has not to leave his home to serve his country. In the case of a town councillor he has not to go even to the expense of paying a tram fare. He can follow his occupation without inconvenience. But if a man has to come to London to attend to the duties of Parliament, you place a barrier upon him, which may be beyond the means of all except those who have financial resources. We want to abolish that once and for all.
There is another point. I believe this will give us better representation of all classes than any other form we could possibly adopt, and I feel that it is only when all classes are equally and freely represented in this House that we can have knowledge here of what is the feeling throughout the country. I would liken the differences in the views held by Members of Parliament to the differences in our watches. They do not all indicate the same time, but I venture to say that if every Member put down on a piece of paper the time given by his own watch, and if all these, whether fast or slow, were added up and the average taken, you would come nearer to the accurate time than you would by taking the time from any individual watch. Therefore, I claim that equal and proper representation by the free selection of the Constituencies in all parts of the country will give us here, what we do not now possess, though perhaps we possess it better in this Parliament than in any previous one, namely, a knowledge of what the wishes of the Constituencies are. I feel that this is a matter which is urgent, and that there is no valid reason why we should not proceed at once with it. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and to support the words of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and others who have all been in favour of the payment of Members, because this is a case which has passed long beyond the zone of debate and argument. It is now

1929
recognised by all sections practically, and certainly by a large majority, that it is a thing which must be carried into effect. I ask the Government to brush aside all obstacles and manfully face this proposition and carry it through.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I think that as an Irish Member I may be allowed to intervene in this Debate. We have heard the stock argument of Gentlemen of a certain political party that the Irish party is a paid party. The Irish party is a party of poor men, who, knowing that the interests of their constituents are at stake, have accepted sums of money as mere contributions of love and affection from their people. We came here to attend to those interests. The abuse of the Irish party on account of these payments was pretty frequent, but of late it has been discontinued to a considerable extent. I was to some extent the means of stopping it. I carried war into the enemy's camp, and I showed how they were paid and in what way. I wish to speak of one aspect of this Question on which I am in some small measure able to speak with a little knowledge, and that is the historical aspect. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench that in the course of his very delightful speech he made use of one sentence which I will slightly enlarge, because in that sentence is the germ of a great constitutional and political truth. The right hon. Gentleman said that in proportion as Parliaments were free they were less subject to corruption, and he also said it would not be difficult to show that in the earlier periods when Parliaments were paid they were far more advocates of popular liberties than in the time when payment fell off. That is absolutely true. This Statute in reference to the payment of Members is still on the Statute Book. It is a Statute of Edward. It is not like the Statute of Edward III., which is only brought into operation against Irish Members. This Statute has not been brought into operation for some time, but we have the authority of no less a lawyer than Lord Campbell, who was Lord Chancellor of Ireland and then Chief Justice of England, and afterwards Lord Chancellor of England, and he gave it as deliberate opinion, at the time he was writing in the forties, that the Statute de expensis could still be brought into operation, and Members of Parliament would have the legal right to get from their Constituents the old payment of 4s. for a Knight of the shire and
1930
2s. for the ordinary branches. That Statute has been in existence from that day to this. How does it come not to be acted on? It came not to be acted on when this great event happened: When Members who were first sent by their constituents largely not to give but to check and modify supply, and to see that in granting supplies their constituents' liberties were given for them, when they were sent to this House to discharge those duties they were paid, and paid simply the travelling expenses of these days, because they were serving their constituents. But a time came, through the manipulation of the Crown, in the creation of rotten boroughs—these boroughs were always rotten up to the time that they were created. They were not decaying boroughs at all. There were 180 of them at the time that the Reform Bill was passed—franchise boroughs that were really nomination boroughs—then the time came when Members of Parliament, instead of being paid by their constituents, paid their constituents to let them come in, and traffic in corruption themselves. That is the whole story of that from beginning to end. I mean to pay a proper and gracious recognition to my hon. Friend because by a happy coincidence he mentioned Colchester.
Perhaps a man who rather likes to look at the records of the past may state this. I was reading only this very day a most interesting Debate in reference to this very subject of payment of Members, led and introduced by the Gentleman of the day who was Member for Colchester, Sir Harbottle Grimstead, a very celebrated Parliamentary character. He brought in a Bill in 1676 for the abolition of payment of Members, and the Parliament in which he brought in this Bill was the most infamous—and that is a strong expression—that was ever established in England. It was known as the Pensions Parliament of Charles II., and every second man in it was bribed by France. He brought in this Bill, and the Members seem to have been in great delight at that. Of course, they had paid nothing for their seats. They were paid nothing for being Members of Parliament; they did not exact it. And then, with an exquisite example of delightful self-abnegation that you could scarcely meet even now in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Sawyer got up and said he would be perfectly delighted if the Bill was carried, with the proviso that at least the salary of the last two years of Parliamentary service was paid. And then another Gentleman got up and said: "That is all

1931
very well for the like of the hon. Baronet, because he has only been in the House of Commons two years, and he is going to secure his salary, when I have been in the House of Commons sixteen years, and I have not got a halfpenny of it." They allowed the second reading to go, and then they droped it, and it was dropped from that day to this. But there was a recorder, and a recording angel in that Parliament, who saw and witnessed and took some part in that transaction. That was the very last Member except one who was actually paid formally by his constituents.
That was Andrew Marvell, of whom Mr. Bright in his speech made in this House in 1858 said he hoped some day or other the property qualification would be abolished, and he hoped some day or other they would see Labour representatives paid by their constituents in this House, and he mentioned Andrew Marvell, the last paid representative, as one of the best and purest examples of Parliamentary life that ever adorned the annals of Parliament. Marvell saw that, and gave a description of that in one of the letters to his Constituents. But what happened to Marvell himself? The Leader of the Government of that day was a gentleman named Danby. He was qualified to be the first Duke of Guise. He was, as characterised by Macaulay, the ne plus ultra of corruption and pollution. He had a charming manner, with the kindly aspect of a young ladylike presence, and he came to Andrew Marvell, and Danby used to wear all the paraphernalia of state and glory at that time, and he came to Andrew Marvell's lodgings, and he walked up the creaking stairs and went into the dingy room, and then, with his graceful manner and his feline way, he offered some emolument to this great man, and Marvell said he was sent to represent his Constituents, and he perfectly understood that and would not have it, and then Danby had been in the House of Commons and thought he could deal with that, and going downstairs he slipped a note for £1,000 into Marvell's hands. And Marvell was deeply impressed by that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Marvellous."] He told Danby to go upstairs. The man went, and then Marvell asked his poor servant boy, "What had I for dinner yesterday?" The answer was, "A small leg of mutton." Then he asked, "What will I have to-day?" and the answer was, "Sir,
1932
you will have the blade of that joint." Then he said, "I have my dinner and I am true to my Constituents, and you and your £1,000 walk straight out of that." That is really a Parliament that was not paid directly, but they were paid indirectly, just as, sometimes, not always by accident, men are rewarded with baronetcies and knighthoods.
This de expensis Act was an enactment made in one of the corruptest periods of Parliamentary life—that is, the time of Queen Anne. What it enacted was this: Parliament passed a statute whereby no one was allowed into the House of Commons who could not show if he were a county Member that he had £500 a year in land and £300 per annum in property of some kind or another. That kept men out of the House of Commons fully fitted to represent, down to 1859, when it was abrogated. In reference to this, it is the correct and proper thing that Members of the House of Commons should be paid. It is right that they should have some little remuneration. It would give them a higher sense possibly of obligation to the service to which they were devoted. I do not believe in absolute service for love, nor does the hon. Gentleman believe in it, because if he did the first thing he would do would be to vote for the disestablishment of the English Church and let them work for love. I end as I began, by emphasising the sound doctrine preached by the right hon. Gentleman, that in the purest times of Parliament Members were paid, and in the most corrupt times of Parliament they were unpaid. With these words I think I may leave my presentation of the case to the House itself.
Mr. A. E. DUNN: It has been pointed out by more than one hon. Member that this Resolution divides itself into two heads, and it is manifest that the first, at any rate, receives practically the unanimous support of all parties in this House, namely, that it is the duty of the public to provide that machinery which indicates their choice at the poll of their Member of Parliament. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, in querying, I will not put it higher than that, whether or not this is a charge that might well be borne by the local authority. One has in England in these days to rather regret that so large a division is made between local imposts and State taxation. After all is said and done, there may be different pockets, but it is the

1933
same garment to which the pockets belong, and it may be that if the local authority had to pay for this particular machinery it would be better able to check and to guard against extravagant expenditure, and probably resentment might be shown against the candidate who forced himself to the poll against the well-known wish of the constituency. With regard to these charges, it has already been pointed out how absurd some of them are. I have no doubt many Members sitting in this House have had to pay for the purchase of ballot boxes and for stamping instruments that have been bought by preceding candidates over and over again. I remember very well on one occasion the matter came to my own knowledge. A very considerable charge had been made for the purpose—it was the scale charge—of purchasing ballot boxes and stamping instruments. It may not be known that there is a clause in the Act of Parliament which gives the right to one of the two candidates to claim the moiety of all the boxes and half the stamping instruments that have been used. One of the candidates who had paid for these particular boxes applied for his moiety of the boxes and half the stamping instruments. The Under-Sheriff was exceedingly astonished, and said he could not possibly part with them; they had been used for the last five elections, and would be wanted again. For the last five elections the candidates had paid for these ballot boxes and stamping instruments, which probably had been borrowed from the municipal authority, who for their own purposes had provided them, as most municipal bodies do at the present moment. Under-Sheriffs are most estimable gentlemen, who have many varied duties to perform, but I find they call the year of a General Election "a fat year." It is a pity, at any rate, that some of the "fat" does not come to those who provide it. I do not think I need say anything further with regard to that part of the question. It has met with that unanimity of approval which should lead, before long, to a practical enactment. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will use the influence he naturally possesses with his leaders to induce them to appeal to the Government to deal with this matter, and it would then be very soon passed by the House as a non-contentious measure. We know that unfortunately measures which are supposed to be non-contentious on account of expressions falling from the Opposition occasionally blossom into con-
1934
tention directly they have been put in the form of attempted practical legislation.
With regard to this Question of the payment of Members, we are told that it is a dangerous thing, because we shall have professional politicians. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] A gentleman behind me says "Hear, hear." Well, I do not know what my hon. Friend's definition of a professional politician may be, but we have had a definition to-night of a professional Member from the hon. Member for Hammersmith. He has told us that a paid Member is a Member who does not work for love, and that a man works for love and comes here because of the love he bears his country and the love he has for Parliamentary work. If he does not come here for love of that, then he is a professional politician. Then I say unhesitatingly that there are many professional politicians in this House who are not paid Members, and there are paid Members in this House who are not professional politicians, if you take that definition. We know, and are proud of the fact, that there are gentlemen in this House who make no excuse, and who openly publish the fact, that they receive a salary of £250 or £300. Would the hon. Member for Hammersmith with that definition he has told us look to the Benches below the Gangway and point out any man who does not come here for love?
What we want here is to enable men to come here for the love of the work. We want payment not for the services rendered here, because the payment of a paltry £300 would be inadequate remuneration for the services men render in this House. What we want is to remove the barrier which stands in the way of so many coming here and from working for the love of their country, which is such an ideal, and rightly so, according to the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The Gentleman who so well represents Donegal in this House has gone into a historical retrospect. It is exceedingly interesting to hear those historical reminiscences. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I just say on this matter that it was my privilege to examine a document which dealt directly with this question of the payment of Members. It was only a Bill showing how a gentleman who was occupying the position of chief magistrate of an ancient western city four hundred years ago dealt with certain monies that had been entrusted to him to come to the Bar of this House and give an explanation of why that particular city declined to pay the wages of one of

1935
its Members. It was not a question of wanting to get out of the payment. The amount demanded was much smaller than the amount given to the mayor to come to the Bar of the House and explain. The mayor came to the Bar of your House, and he said that they objected to pay one of their Members because that particular Member was not doing his duty to the constituency he represented.
Those are, of course, ancient historical precedents, but we are told that precedent, after all, is a matter which should be taken into consideration when we are dealing with proposed legislation in this way. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion of my hon. Friend. We were told some years ago it would open the portals of this House to various and different classes of Society. I am very glad to know that those portals have been opened, and that the House is the richer, because all classes are now represented in this Chamber. There is one thing surely more important than anything else, and that is that every Member of the House should be absolutely independent. I will use an argument, which I am sure the Labour Members will not misunderstand. Their presence under the conditions which bring them here is one of the greatest arguments you can possibly have in favour of payment of Members of Parliament. Many Members are here because they are paid by their Unions. It may be that a Member so paid desires to vote in a manner which he knows will give offence to the particular Union which pays him, and he is face to face with this difficulty: He must either displease his Union and stand the chance of losing the remuneration which makes it possible for him to be here, or vote in opposition to his real views. I say that the only fear a man ought to have in this House is the fear of his constituents, and the constituency of a trade union is not always the same thing as the constituency of a borough or county. Consequently, I say that the very presence of Labour Members brought here and paid by the great labour corporations renders it more important in the interests of the independence of Members of this Chamber that they should be paid by the State, so that they need have no fear that any vote they give will offend the body which provides the maintenance necessary to their presence here. I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion.
Mr. REES: The hon. Member for Camborne spoke of £300 a year as a paltry sum. I submit that it is by no means a paltry sum.
Mr. DUNN: I never said it was a paltry sum I said that it was a comparatively small sum as remuneration for the services rendered.
Mr. REES: With all respect to the hon. Member, whatever the context may have been, I think he used the word "paltry."
Mr. DUNN: May I put it this way? I am sure that no one would suggest, if he were assessing the services of the hon. Member, that £300 would be a fair remuneration.
Mr. REES: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member for his high estimate of my services; I regret that my estimate of his arguments is not so favourable. ["Oh."] I said "of his arguments," and I said it with all courtesy. I think £300 a year for every Member, if it is to be put on the rates, as I gather the majority of hon. Members wish, is a very large sum. I have not had an opportunity of consulting my Constituents on the point, but I very much doubt whether they would consider that £300 a year on the rates was a paltry sum, or would in any way approve of it. The hon. Member for Camborne also referred to the absolute necessity of all Members of this House being independent. No sooner had he stated that indisputable fact than, as it seemed to me, he blew his own argument into thin air by contending that the representatives of trade unions in this House were not independent. That appears to me to be the case. I say, with the greatest possible respect to hon. Members opposite, that nobody who is paid can be thoroughly independent of those who pay him. Last Session an hon. Member who had received party aid for his election expenses was roundly accused by a Labour representative as not being an independent Member for that reason. The hon. Member concerned took exception to this, and brought the matter before the House. With great respect to him and to any others similarly situated, I believe that no hon. Member whose election expenses are paid can be so independent as an hon. Member whose expenses are not paid. The hon. Member for Wirral in his speech said that this Question affects all Members of the House, and not only the Members on the Labour Benches. To that I heartily subscribe, and I deduce from it

1937
exactly the opposite conclusion to that drawn from it by the hon. Member. I believe that all men in all positions are more independent in proportion as they are dependent only upon their own resources, upon the product of their own labour or their own belongings, and absolutely independent of any payment. Then the hon. Member for South Donegal, I thought, with rather undue insistence, kept on referring to rotten boroughs. Seeing that boroughs are as honest as, and more intelligent than, county divisions, I hope he only referred to those of the past. But he seemed to take a pleasure in dwelling upon it. I think that he also dwelt unnecessarily upon the question of the character of British Parliaments. In reference to the British Minister to which he referred, I remember a far more pleasing reminiscence of that Minister. The Minister, whose private circumstances apparently were not affluent, and who had risen to great height apparently by his great talents, was said by his King to have owed a good deal of his success to the fact that "he was never in the way, and never out of the way." These were really great merits. I suppose this was the Minister to whom the hon. Member referred.
Mr. MacNEILL: This was not the same Minister of whom I spoke. It was Sidney Godolphin.
Mr. REES: Then it was a near relation. But the hon. Member, at any rate, argued in favour of this measure, and then it seemed to me he proved it was unnecessary. It seemed to me that he, after laying down the necessity for it, immediately proceeded to show that it was not one that was needed by the hon. Members from Ireland. They, as everyone knows, are extremely able gentlemen, and devoted to their work in this House to such an extent as to be a pattern and an example. The hon. Gentleman first of all argued that we must have this payment. He then proceeded to say that the hon. Members from Ireland are most of them poor men, and therefore he proved that what he wanted was not in the least necessary in order to obtain the best possible Members. That is deducible from what he said, and is a position with which I most heartily agree. If this House is to vote for itself, out of the funds for which it is trustee appointed by the nation, £300 a year per member, why are matters to stop there? The French Deputies, who began with
1938
a certain payment, have lately raised it. I think the same thing has happened in some of our Colonies. I know that only this morning in "The Times" we find the Members of the Cape Parliament have decided to take £400 a year apiece. I submit with great respect to hon. Members of the contrary opinion that it would be a very serious derogation of the present Parliament, and very much impair the high standard of impartiality and independence which exists here, if any sum, be it £300 or £400 or any other, were voted by Parliament for the purposes of Members. Members at the present moment in this House—I do not think anybody would dispute that—derive a great deal of the authority which they possess from the fact that they are not merely Members of Parliament, but something else besides; that they have some authority, some reputation, in other capacities than that of Members of Parliament, and for that reason, and just in proportion as they have reputation and a position outside this House, the opinions which they express in this House are valuable. That class of gentleman described—I do not use the words in any offensive sense—as a "professional politician," is necessarily wanting in those very qualities which give the authority they possess to hon. Members who now sit here. I cannot for the life of me understand how it is consistent with the general policy of distinguished Members on this side of the House and immediately opposite—how it is consistent with their credit that this House should sit down and vote for itself a salary. Moreover, if hon. Members of this House are to have salaries, I do not know on what ground salaries should be refused to Noble Lords in the other place—except on grounds of prejudice. I fail to see how the distinction could be maintained and fairly argued. Moreover, in every county in the United Kingdom there are numbers of gentlemen spending their lives in the service of their fellow-countrymen as members of county councils and other councils, as magistrates, and so on, without payment. They are proud to do it, and the fact that they are not paid ensures for them a position of impartiality which they could not occupy if they were paid, and it is also an enormous saving to the over-rated counties in which they work. I maintain to pay Members of Parliament would be to strike a blow at this great system of voluntary service which is the pride of the country, and that is one of the reasons why,

1939
despite, very often, a great many laws which are not the best, that the law is so well administered. It is all very well to say, as the hon. Member who last spoke said, that £300 a year is not too much to pay Members, or at all events to pay to Members of whom he approves, or who agree with him, or are of his way of thinking. The amount of pay may not be beyond the deserts of an individual, but it may be beyond the means of those who have to pay it, and I think the ratepayers of this country, and the taxpayers, too, have reached a condition in which they cannot afford to pay more than they are paying at present, and this House, at least as the representatives of the taxpayers, should be exceedingly chary of adding to the charges which weigh upon them so heavily, and which they so courageously bear.
I do not believe that any hon. Member will get up in this House and say that at the last General Election this was one of the planks in his platform. [Cries of "Yes."] I beg leave to withdraw that, as there are hon. Members who did, but at least the majority of hon. Members, I venture to say, did not. The cost of these two reforms which have been laid before the House to-night would mean to the people the interest on something like the cost of old age pensions—£9,000,000 a year. [Laughter.] Yes, the interest on that sum, which comes to about a quarter of a million a year, and I, for my part, am extremely glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—I do not know whether he was very warm or platonic, as I had not the good fortune to hear him—did not undertake to take any active steps to bring these reforms about, and for that, at any rate, I thank him. Then there are the hon. Gentlemen for whom the hon. Member for Donegal spoke. He urged that this reform of payment of Members was desirable in the interest of hon. Members from Ireland, to whose devotion to their work and to whose capacity I venture to offer my humble tribute. But I think it would be a very odd thing if the taxpayers were to pay £300 a year to hon. Members who avowedly—I do not presume to criticise—come here, not for the purpose of furthering the business of this House, but for the purpose of obstructing the business of this House. ["Oh."] I speak with all courtesy and respect of hon. Members; it is their own position that I state, not mine. I would not venture to state that unless hon. Members from Ireland had
1940
stated it themselves. There can be no disrespect in repeating for hon. Members that description which they give of themselves. I say that it is somewhat illogical—I do not know that I dislike it on that account—and there is something absurd in a payment of £300 a year being voted to Irish Members of Parliament in order to further the business of an Assembly which they do not think ought to exist, and of the proceedings of which they thoroughly disapprove. That is a position which requires a little clearing up. The question of returning officers' expenses has also been touched upon. I do not know that I am any more anxious when I am a candidate to contribute to the purse of various local lawyers than other hon. Members, and I do not know that it gives me any more pleasure than it does any other hon. Member, but I would rather do that than see those expenses put upon the rates. I do not see why the ratepayers should bear those expenses; the constituencies are the best judges of the situation, and if they can get a candidate to come forward without costing them anything, why should they be forced to pay these expenses? Why should the constituencies of hon. Members who are willing to come here and do their best, many of whom satisfy their constituencies, be forced to pay salaries which they do not wish to pay, and which their representatives have not asked for?
Another evil which must result from putting the returning officers' expenses upon the rates or the Imperial taxes is that there will be no kind of check, and you will get all kinds of extravagant, eccentric, and absurd candidates coming forward. You will have such candidates as Mr. Hunnable, who knows he has no chance of being returned, and only goes forward in order to keep somebody else out. This Motion would aggravate that difficulty. I do not think that many hon. Members have such great complaints to bring forward against returning officers as might be inferred from certain remarks which, I gather, have been made this evening. I know I have not. It has been argued that it is a good thing that this country should pay Members of Parliament because other countries on the Continent of Europe pay their members. It would be an equally good, or rather bad, argument to say that because Continental countries do extremely well under Protection, therefore this country should adopt the principle of Protection. In point of fact, it seems to me that if we have a sys-

1941
tem which works fairly well, there are at least some arguments to be advanced for letting it alone. It is admitted that the present system works well, and it is not certain that the changes which have been made in it have been improvements. I thank the House for the courtesy and patience it has shown in listening to opinions with which, I gather, they do not in all quarters agree. How it can possibly be argued that because a man has not got the money to pay his election expenses he is likely to make a better Member of Parliament than one who has, seems to me inconceivable.
I do not for a moment say that, because a man has money to pay his expenses, therefore he is more eloquent or more able than a man who has not the money; but it does appear to me that there is some guarantee for impartiality in the fact that he is not beholden to any man. We admit that fact in every other walk of life, and in all business transactions. I quite realise the fact that hon. Members should represent all classes of the community; but it is perfectly clear that the want of means does not keep away men who have the confidence of their fellow citizens. The proposal before the House is a far-reaching change at the expense of the ratepayers, and probably at the risk of impairing that impartiality and that independence which are the most precious possessions of a Member of Parliament.
Mr. H. J. P. R. BELLOC:I think I may say that the hon. Members who have spoken against the Resolution can hardly be taken seriously. The proportion of Members against the payment of returning officers' expenses is infinitesimal. What I want to put before the House is another aspect of the question. Why is not the payment of the returning officers' expenses not the law, and why is it not to become the law? The House has again and again passed Resolutions in favour of it. The House will pass the Resolution tonight, and it will continue to pass it, and yet it will not become law. Yet this is a House which says it has powers almost sovereign; and yet after the expression of its earnest and convinced opinion nothing happens. We are told that every class of the community is represented here. That is absolutely false. The class which I represent, earning comparatively small incomes, is not represented here. I mean the professional class. Though I should like to see a larger number of men who are
1942
or have been artizans here, yet there is one class which is kept out. I would like to suggest that when the territorial classes made themselves masters of the Universities and of Parliament, as well as of many other institutions in the country, the reason why they did not continue the payment of Members was that it was not worth their while in view of the small sum paid. They instead raised to an enormous level—a quite unprofitable level—the salaries attached to the big jobs, and these to a great extent still remain, although they are not all quite so bad as formerly. For instance, the Bishop of Durham does not get the great sum originally associated with his office, and there has been a good deal of clearing out in other directions. Still, some of the high salaries yet remain, and the only reason that there was not this small sum allocated to Members of Parliament in the eighteenth century was that it was not worth the while of the wealthy classes, in view of the fact that they intended to monopolise both branches of the Legislature. The reason of the opposition of the Government to a step of this sort is that it would make the private Member more independent and more powerful. I believe the First Commissioner of Works is perfectly sincere when he says he will vote for this Resolution to-night. But what is the good of his sincerity if, as a Member of the Government, he cannot pronounce that in the General Reform Bill which is to be produced before the end of this Parliament, they will not include safe and obvious propositions such as are embodied in this Resolution we are discussing. If they cannot do so it must be because the present system, which I heartily deplore, is dearer to both the Liberal and the Conservative side than the independence of private Members and the conversion of this House into a real deliberative assembly. Personally I attach less importance to the point of the payment of the returning officers' expenses. The bulk of the expense of fighting an election in an English constituency is not the official expense. A poor man must necessarily have money other than his own behind him even if the election officer's expenses are paid out of the public funds. That will continue at any rate, but it does not follow when he is here that he should not receive remuneration from public sources. There is one point which is very important. If a poor man is not paid out of public funds he will be paid out of some other fund, the

1943
contributors of which will be more or less his masters. I only want the House to consider this anomaly, that it is going to vote in favour of this thing, as it has done in the past and as it will do in the future, but it will not become law. Something, however, will be accomplished if by illuminating this point we show how the whole situation is a farce.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: The ground of opposition to this Motion, as I understand the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, is this: that if you pay a man for making a career of politics and training himself for what after all, are more important duties than any duties of private life, you make him professional and corrupt as well.
Mr. REES: I did not say that.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I understand that was the suggestion.
Mr. REES: I said nothing about corruption.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Upon that point I say this: that, having lived a large portion of my life in Canada, where members are paid £600 a year, where they have free statutory passes on every railway, and where each one gets a present of a trunk and two portmanteaux filled with notepaper, lead pencils, and sealing-wax—I must say this, in all seriousness, that whatever corruption there is in Canadian life, other Colonial life or American political life, it does not come from the small salary that
goes with the membership; it comes from corrupt influences in political life quite independent of that salary altogether. In this country you have a corrupting influence in the drink traffic, without which not one out of 50 Members on the other side of the House would be here at all.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of order, may I ask you whether it is in order for any hon. Gentleman to allege that not one in 50 of any section of the House would be here but for corrupt influences?
Mr. SPEAKER: On the face of it it was so absurd and extravagant a statement that I do not suppose the hon. Member himself really attached any importance to it.
Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I did not for a moment wish to impute any wrong motive to any Member. What I wished to emphasise, and what I shall say again, is this, that the payment of Members does not itself corrupt the Members, but it is the corrupting influence behind it, whether it be the liquor traffic or the tariff system.
Mr. H. C. BRODIE: On theoretical grounds there is no argument whatsoever against the payment of Members. I think it is desirable that constituencies should have the widest possible choice in their selection of Members of Parliament.
Mr. HIGHAMrose in his place and claimed to move: "That the Question be now put."
Question put: "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 75.

Division No. 101.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crean, Eugene

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Crooks, William

Agnew, George William

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crosfield, A. H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Curran, Peter Francis

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond.)

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cameron, Robert

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Barker, Sir John

Chance, Frederick William

Delany, William

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Devlin, Joseph

Barnard, E. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Barnes, G. N.

Clancy, John Joseph

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

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Cleland, J. W.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Clough, William

Dillon, John

Beale, W. P.

Clynes, J. R.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Beauchamp, E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Duckworth, Sir James

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Duffy, William J.

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Bennett, E. N.

Cooper, G. J.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bottomley, Horatio

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Boulton, A. C. F.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Essex, R. W.

Brace, William

Cowan, W. H.

Esslemont, George Birine

Branch, James

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Falconer, James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ferens, T. R.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ffrench, Peter

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Findlay, Alexander

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

Robinson, S.

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Micking, Major G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Fullerton, Hugh

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rowlands, J.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gill, A. H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Glendinning, R. G.

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Glover, Thomas

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seaverns, J. H.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Massie, J.

Seddon, J.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Middlebrook, William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Halpin, J.

Montgomery, H. G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Morse, L. L.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tdyvil)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Muldoon, John

Stanger, H. Y.

Harwood, George

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N W.)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hazleton, Richard

Myer, Horatio

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholls, George

Summerbell, T.

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Henry, Charles S.

Nolan, Joseph

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomasson, Franklin

Hobart, Sir Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hodge, John

Nuttall, Harry

Tomkinson, James

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Verney, F. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

Vivian, Henry

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Malley, William

Walters, John Tudor

Hyde, Clarendon G.

O'Shee, James John

Walton, Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Jenkins, J.

Partington, Oswald

Wardle, George J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Watt, Henry A.

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Staff. Wald.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Kelley, George D.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Kilbride, Denis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Pirie, Duncan V.

Wiles, Thomas

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Wilkie, Alexander

Lehmann, R. C.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

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

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Raphael, Herbert H.

Winfrey, R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Maclean, Donald

Reddy, M.

Young, Samuel

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Higham and Mr. Fenwick

Macpherson, J. T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

NOES.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Hunt, Rowland

Balcarres, Lord

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Baldwin, Stanley

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kerry, Earl of

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Lamont, Norman

Brodie, H. C.

Fell, Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Forster, Henry William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Bull, Sir William James

Gordon, J.

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gretton, John

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Carlile, E. Hildred

Haddock, George B.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hamilton, Marquess of

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Clark, George Smith

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Hedges, A. Paget

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Helmsley, Viscount

Moore, William

Craik, Sir Henry

Hodge, Sir Robert Hermon-

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Dairymple, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement

Oddy, John James

1946

1947

Parkes, Ebenezer

Renwick, George

Starkey, John R.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Pretyman, E. G.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Rees, J. D.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Morpeth and Lord Robert Cecil.

Renton, Leslie

Stanier, Beville

Main Question put accordingly: "That in the opinion of this House the non-payment of Members and the liability of candidates for the returning officers' expenses render it impossible for many constituencies to exercise a free choice in their selection of candidates and election of Members of Parliament; and this House is of opinion that any measure of general electoral reform passed before the Dissolu-
tion of this Parliament, and coming into force upon or after the Dissolution, should be accompanied by arrangements for the Payment of Members elected to serve in Parliament and for the transfer to the Imperial Exchequer of the financial responsibility for the returning officers' expenses incurred in the conduct of such elections."
The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 92.

Division No. 102.]

AYES.

[11.10 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maclean, Donald

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Essex, R. W.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Barnard, E. B.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macpherson, J. T.

Barnes, G. N.

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Barran, Sir John Nicholson

Everett, R. Lacey

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Falconer, James

M'Callum, John M.

Beale, W. P.

Ferens, T. R.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Ffrench, Peter

Maddison, Frederick

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Markham, Arthur Basil

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Findlay, Alexander

Marnham, F. J.

Bennett, E. N.

Flynn, James Christopher

Massie, J.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bottomley, Horatio

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Brace, William

Glendinning, R. G.

Middlebrook, William

Branch, James

Glover, Thomas

Montgomery, H. G.

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Bryce, J. Annan

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morrell, Philip

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Morse, L. L.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Halpin, J.

Muldoon, John

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Myer, Horatio

Clancy, John Joseph

Harwood, George

Nicholls, George

Cleland, J. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Clough, William

Hazleton, Richard

Nolan, Joseph

Clynes, J. R.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nuttall, Harry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Cooper, G. J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hodge, John

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hogan, Michael

O'Grady, J.

Cowan, W. H.

Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

O'Malley, William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Shee, James John

Crean, Eugene

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crooks, William

Hudson, Walter

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Staff. Wald.)

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon G.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Curran, Peter Francis

Jardine, Sir J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Dalziel, Sir James Henry

Jenkins, J.

Philips, John (Longford, S.)

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kelley, George D.

Pollard, Dr. G. H.

Delany, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Devlin, Joseph

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kilbride, Denis

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Lamont, Norman

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

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Radford, G. H.

Dillon, John

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Duckworth, Sir James

Levy, Sir Maurice

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Duffy, William J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Reddy, M.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Waterlow, D. S.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stanger, H. Y.

Watt, Henry A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

Robinson, S.

Summerbell, T.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Sutherland, J. E.

Wiles, Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilkie, Alexander

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Rose, Charles Day

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Rowlands, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Verney, F. W.

Winfrey R.

Seddon, J.

Vivian, Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

Walsh, Stephen

Young, Samuel

Sherwell, Arthur James

Walters, John Tudor

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Walton, Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Higham and Mr. Fenwick.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wardle, George J.

NOES.

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

Forster, Henry William

Morpeth, Viscount

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morrison-Bell, Captain

Balcarres, Lord

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Gretton, John

Oddy, John James

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beauchamp, E.

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George B.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hamilton, Marquess of

Pretyman, E. G.

Brodie, H. C.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Rees, J. D.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

Renton, Leslie

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

Hill, Sir Clement

Renwich, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

Kerry, Earl of

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Chance, Frederick William

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Clark, George Smith

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Stanier, Beville

Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

Starkey, John R.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Whitbread, S. Howard

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir W. Bull and Mr. Carlile.

Fell, Arthur

Moore, William

Motion made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

    CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
    [Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
    [IN THE COMMITTEE.]

    INCOME TAX.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That income tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, at the rate of one shilling and two pence in the pound and that an additional duty of income tax at the rate of six pence in the pound be charged in respect of incomes which ex-
    1950
    ceed five thousand pounds on every pound of the amount by which the income exceeds three thousand pounds.
    "That no exemption, abatement, or relief under the Income Tax Acts shall be given to any person who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: We are asked now to discuss this particular Resolution with a Resolution which was passed a short time ago by the House, and with which probably you are not acquainted, and which Resolution was supported by a large number of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which imposes a charge upon the Imperial Exchequer. We are now discussing how we are to meet charges which

    1951
    are imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer. Being desirous of promoting the despatch of business, and in order to give the Government an opportunity of considering how they will propose to meet the additional expenditure for which they have just voted, and for which a Resolution will be necessary, I beg to move to report progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I cannot take any such Motion, as the House decided, at the interruption of business, that they would go on.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I respectfully point out that when the House decided, at a quarter past eight, to go on with the business, no one knew that this Resolution would be carried, much less that the Government would vote for it. My desire is to give the Government an opportunity of explaining the steps they propose to take. Under the circumstances, it would be for the benefit of the House and of the country that the Government should have an opportunity of explaining their attitude.
    The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Baronet has said does not in any way affect my decision.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not for a moment question that the decision you have just given is in strict accordance with the precedents which have been set by yourself and your predecessors; but I think everybody will admit that my hon. Friend and Colleague in the representation of the City of London had very peculiar and strong moral grounds for pressing upon the Government and those who support this Budget the gross Parliamentary impropriety of starting a Resolution of this character at this late hour. There may have been occasions—I doubt not there have been—when the proposal for the income tax has been disposed of at this hour without any gentlemen feeling themselves deeply aggrieved by the procedure of the Government. But what occasions were those? They were occasions when there was no fundamental alteration made in the tax as regards either its amount or the method of its collection. This income tax embodies an entirely novel principle, a principle which so far is absolutely unknown in our legislation, which would have been regarded with horror by the Finance Ministers who were the first to impose income tax for certain special purposes in this country; and it contains proposals of which we have had no
    1952
    defence as yet from the Minister in charge. I really do not know whether I ought at this period of our Debate upon this Resolution to make any complaint of that, because it is a familiar practice. The one thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer never thinks it necessary to do is to explain his Budget. He did, indeed, earlier in the afternoon, for the first time, make some supplementary statement which elucidated his original presentation of his financial proposals; but that was, as I understand it, simply because he happened to have omitted five pages from the original statement, the result of which was that for nearly a fortnight the whole country has mistaken the nature of his proposals, and neither in this House nor in the numerous opportunities which he has given himself outside this House of explaining his scheme did he ever think fit to do so. When he at last thought fit to do so, when at last the five pages were replaced—[An HON. MEMBER: "Six."]—that are relevant to the question of procedure which we are now discussing—he had no opportunity, or took no opportunity, of discussing the new position in which we found ourselves. If that is to be the procedure on all the Resolutions, I quite understand that the Government think it natural—not only proper, but natural—that they should begin a most important, and a most novel discussion, after the hour that normally we conclude our Debates. If the Government never think it necessary to reply, does it matter at what hour of the evening we present our arguments? If the Government never think it desirable to explain, does it matter whether we put our questions at four o'clock in the afternoon, at eleven o'clock in the evening, or at four o'clock in the morning? Of course it does not!
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the habit of telling us that these are preliminary Resolutions to the Finance Bill. So they are. And if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had never done anything more reprehensible than bidding us to defer discussion on machinery and detail till we had the Bill in cur hands, I, for my part, would never have raised the smallest complaint as to the procedure. That is not what he does. There is no way of putting an argument so precise and clear as to extract a precise and clear answer from those in charge of the Bill. If I wandered into the loose rhetoric of the Secretary of State for War last night, or burst into—well, they evade all points which have been made on

    1953
    the ground that the proper time of reply was either yesterday, or will be weeks hence. They make up these deficiencies by a kind of rhetoric which I admire, but which I think extremely ill-placed, misplaced, on occasions like this.
    The Resolution which the Government wish us to begin discussing at half-past 11 o'clock at night does not merely involve an increase in the income tax. It involves a wholly new method of dealing with the income tax. For my part, I agree—I think I have already said so—I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, who said that in his view there was no fundamental ground for objecting to graduations in the sense that you might take a proportionate view of a man's income, and that you might, though not necessarily, or inevitably, charge larger on larger than on smaller incomes. I am not going to dispute that proposition. What I really do think requires defence from the Government is not injustice—if there be injustice done to the higher income taxpayers—what we want is some justification from a practical point of view of the methods they have adopted. Everybody admits that the income tax is not only our mainstay in times of temporary difficulty—whether these difficulties be due to war or changes of taxation—everybody admits also, I think, that if you put too great a burden upon the income taxpayer in a time of peace you will do two things. You will, in the first place, destroy your power of using that great fiscal weapon when you most want it, and in the second place you will really diminish its yield by driving out of the country the income tax-paying capital, putting it in the form in which you can get income tax, and you will do a great deal to provoke evasions which destroy the yield now, and which probably for many years to come will destroy the yield from that income tax. I do not know what opinion the Chancellor has got on this point from those who advise him, nor do I pretend to have any minute knowledge on this subject; but I go about like other people, and I see the various conditions of men, and I get a great amount of correspondence, and I am inclined to think that there are a large number of income taxpayers in this country who have no desire to evade what they consider fair income tax, but who will undoubtedly set themselves to seeing to what extent they can defeat an income tax of which they disapprove. I am not defending that. I am no more defending
    1954
    that than I am defending smuggling when you have very high duties to deal with. I think they are both wrong. [An HON. MEMBER: "And on a par."] And, if you like, both are on a par, but every sound financier has always held the view that one of the objections to duties being made too high is, that human nature being what it is, you will get smuggling in certain circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway who so lightly interrupted me just now, I am quite sure, if he lived one hundred years ago, in the time that smuggling did exist in large proportions, would not have been at all adverse to sharing with his friends a little smuggled French brandy on every possible occasion. But at any rate I hope the House understands I am not in the least discussing the morals of this matter. I entirely object to evasion, whether by smuggling or in any other way. I am looking at it from the Chancellor's point, and it is quite clear if you make any set of people evade taxes, however erroneous that view may be, the people who suffer will be, in the first place, the Treasury, and in the second place those who cannot evade and who have to bear more than their fair share, and in the third place the general body of the community. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he does not know, and whether he has not opinion leading him to believe, that as a result of this tax those who can, without difficulty, evade it will do so, who never would have thought of doing so before, and without that breach of the law which smuggling undoubtedly is. Hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House know that, as a matter of fact, if a man is rich enough to accumulate his income abroad he does not pay any income tax upon it at all, and the law does not require him to pay income tax. It will be very difficult to prevent that. If a man is rich enough, and has his money in a sufficiently fluid condition to enable him to accumulate it abroad, he pays no income tax at all. I have heard from many quarters that the result of the proposals now before us is that people who have never thought of accumulating their money abroad are thinking of doing so now, in strict accordance with the law. Does anybody dispute the accuracy of that statement? I think it would be very difficult to stop that. That is my first complaint against this Resolution, and it is an objection based not upon the fact that you are charging higher incomes at a higher rate, but an objection based upon the fact

    1955
    that you will not get the proportionate yield from your charge, and those who can best afford to pay your charge will be the people who can most easily avoid it.
    My other point relates to the super-tax. I do not object to the super-tax because it is a super-tax, but because it involves an amount of inquisition which hitherto we have been able to wholly avoid under the method we have adopted of collecting the income tax. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not wholly avoid."] Perhaps not wholly avoid, but at any rate very largely to avoid. I am quite confident that it is because we have been able to avoid that inquisition that a tax which is in its nature very unpalatable to the payer has been borne with a certain degree of patience. That is all over now, at all events in regard to every income which is, or is suspected of being, above £5,000 a year. I gather that the calculation of the Government—necessarily a very imperfect one—is that 10,000 persons are going to pay this super-tax, that is, they estimate that there are 10,000 people in the country with more than £5,000 a year. There are a great many more than 10,000 persons in this country who are suspected of having more than £5,000 a year, and every one of those persons will have an inquisition made into his affairs.
    Again, I wish to approach this question from the Treasury point of view, and also from a business point of view. If you make what is naturally an unpopular tax doubly and trebly unpopular by this addition to its burden you give an additional reason to all those people who can invest their money abroad to do so, and they can then take off their hat to the income tax commissioner and say to him: "So far as you are concerned my income does not exceed £5,000 a year; here are my books, and I can prove it." I think that will be bad for the country and bad for the future of the tax and for every class of the community. Once these people begin to invest and re-invest their money abroad they will not be likely to give up that habit even if the income tax should afterwards be put upon a saner and more staple basis.
    That is what I think is necessary for me to say on the point at this stage of the Budget procedure. I believe that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench will be extremely injurious to British finance. That view, I take it, is not held only by one side of the House, but by both sides of the House. It sets at nought the views of Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and Sir W. Harcourt,
    1956
    and a whole series of Chancellors of the Exchequer during the last fifty or sixty years. The whole of their authority may be quoted on the side which I have endeavoured to explain to the House. When a Government wishes to break with the traditions common to both sides of the House they ought not to compel us to discuss the matter at this hour of the night. I really do think that if anything could add to the cynical contempt of the discussions in this House it is the way in which this subject has been treated by the Government. It augurs ill for our future procedure, and during the three years during which the Government has been in office there has not been a more flagrant or a more deplorable contempt of what used to be a great deliberate assembly.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman has devoted his speech, first of all, to a general complaint of our conduct of the business of the House, and, secondly, to the proposal now before the House. I should like to say a few words with regard to the first part of his speech. His complaint is that we have seriously departed from precedent in our procedure. I agree that there has been an entirely new procedure in two respects. First of all, for the first time the financial Resolutions have been printed on the paper. That is a serious departure from precedent. What is the second departure? It is on the part of the Opposition. It is the first time in the whole history of our finance in which Resolutions for the Budget have ever been debated at such length. I have examined precedents on this point. Take the Corn Tax and the Coal Tax. At any rate, these were two serious departures in finance. [Cries of "No."] They were new propositions. ["No."] The Coal Tax was undoubtedly a departure, and the Corn Tax had been abolished for many years. The two Resolutions were fiercely opposed on our side of the House. Yet they were passed in a single night. I will call attention to another instance. I recollect an occasion when practically the whole Budget was passed between 11 o'clock at night and 2 o'clock the following day, and we had six closures moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not a closure upon motions—it was a closure upon whole clauses. I do not know how many taxes were passed at that sitting, but, at any rate, it lasted from 11 p.m. till 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. the following day.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Till 4.30 p.m.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: And that Debate was on very important proposals, including one for the imposition of the Coal Tax. Let me put it to the sense of fairness of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What has happened here? I agree that ours are novel proposals, and I would be the last one in the world to say that they ought not to be discussed fully and thoroughly sifted. I am not pretending that for a moment, but all we are asking for now is the Resolutions on which to base our Bill. We have already had six days' discussion. In this I am not including the first night's statement, but we have had six days' Debate and have only passed four or five Resolutions. We have still eleven Resolutions to get. What does it mean? It means about three weeks' discussion upon the Resolutions. I do not quarrel with that, but it must be done within the three weeks. All we ask for from the Opposition is that we should, at any rate, get the Resolutions before we separate for the Whitsuntide holidays and secure the first reading of the Finance Bill. Is that a monstrous proposition? What does that really mean? It means three weeks' Debate on the first reading of the Bill. Can the Opposition give me a single precedent of that in the case of any Bill? I do not care what Bill it is. The Home Rule Bill was a gigantic undertaking, but it did not take all that time for the first reading. I ask the Opposition to point out a single Bill, financial or otherwise, that has taken three weeks on its first reading. Yet we are not challenging that in this instance. I really think that the sense of fairness of the right hon. Gentleman will allow that we are giving the Opposition, I will not say every latitude, but the most generous latitude in the way of discussion on the Resolutions necessary to enable us to introduce our Bill. I shall be very interested to know what is the right hon. Gentleman's view of what he ought to do under similar circumstances when he may have to introduce a Budget which contains novel proposals—whether he thinks three weeks will not be enough to discuss the preliminary Resolutions on which to base his Bill. I think we are treating them with the most generous latitude in Debate. I am not going back to the days when Mr. Pitt introduced a Budget which had 2,000 Resolutions and passed them all in a single night. The right hon. Gentleman is creating a very dangerous precedent. If 15 or 20 Resolutions are to take three weeks, what will
    1958
    2,000 take. That is all I want to say with regard to that question. I really am not complaining. It is the business of an Opposition to oppose. They object to the Budget, and have, no doubt, very strong feelings about it, but I do not think they can complain that we are treating the Opposition unfairly when we have given all this time—three weeks—for the discussion of the Resolutions upon which simply to base the foundations of our Bill, and are prepared to give time for the Report stage.
    I now come to the questions on the Resolution itself which were discussed by the right hon. Gentleman. I would have preferred to have had further assistance before I got up, but the right hon. Gentleman has put some very important points to me, and therefore I think I had better answer them first of all. The right hon. Gentleman objects first of all to our raising the income tax by 2d., and he suggests that the effect of that may be that we shall lose money rather than gain by it, that it will have the effect of drying up the source from which we derive income tax. But the income tax has been much higher, and the right hon. Gentleman's Government was responsible for it. I think he was Prime Minister at the time when it was put up from 1s. to 1s. 3d. [An HON. MEMBER: "War."] Is war the only public object for which you are to raise taxation? Let the hon. Member put it from another point of view if he likes. Is not this preparation for war? Is not an increase of the Navy an equally important object of an income tax if he looks at the matter purely from the point of view of armaments? We have got to find money for them. Then the right hon. Gentleman said the effect will be that it will dry up the source, and the income from the tax will shrink. What was the result? In his case the income tax not merely went up in proportion to the rise, but the yield of the penny went up, and it has gone up steadily ever since, so that the experience of the last few years has been quite the reverse of the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me put another point. The right hon. Gentleman said, "After all, you ought to leave the income tax as a kind of reserve for a great emergency." I do not think any Government have done that for the last twenty or thirty years. Why should this particular tax be taken as a reserve more than any other tax? If we had not put this two pence on the income tax we should have

    1959
    had to put it on sugar or tea; or would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to put it on wheat? But whatever it is you have to put it on something else. You have to raise the money somehow. Why should the income tax be treated as a reserve, as something which is of a temporary character, while other taxes are regarded as permanent? Why should not the other taxes have their turn as temporary taxes, the taxes on the food of people, for instance? Why should taxes on the necessaries of life be regarded as permanent, and the taxes on high incomes as purely temporary? If any taxes are to be treated as a reserve, I should say the taxes which ought to be so treated are those which would press heaviest on the people who can least afford them. The hon. and gallant Member is in an extremely merry mood. What has caused his merriment? The idea that a tax on necessaries should not be permanent arouses a sense of humour that I should not have discovered in him. It is purely a question of which of these taxes you regard as a reserve. The right hon. Gentleman says his information is that the super-tax is regarded as being so pressing that it may frighten capital abroad. That is not my information. I have had no protest against the super-tax at all, and if he will look at the financial articles he will find that the super-tax is at any rate the one tax about which there is no large apprehension, and my information in the City is that they regard the super-tax as a perfectly fair tax, and I am not at all surprised. What does it mean? You do not begin the super-tax until a man has £5,000 a year, and then the tax you impose on him is something over 2d. Would a man with £5,000 or above really complain, in a time of emergency when you want money for national security, and for great schemes of social reform, if he is asked to contribute an extra 2d. as against men who are less favoured than himself? They do not complain, and I should be very surprised really if any friend of the right hon. Gentleman complained about having to pay an extra tax if he has an income of over £5,000. The right hon. Gentleman says they will go abroad. I ask the question which the Prime Minister has already asked. Where are they going? Has he followed the working of the income tax abroad? In Germany there are two income taxes. There is the State income tax, which is high now and which is going to be higher, which is graduated now, and on which they are going to superimpose a
    1960
    stiffer graduation, and in addition to that every Prussian town has an income tax of its own, and a much stiffer one. Take Essen, the great Krupp centre. A £5,000 a year man would pay not 1s. 4½d., as here, but 2s. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are no rates."] Well, really the hon. Member is very misinformed there again. There are rates, and there are taxes. There are capital taxes on property there. In addition to the income tax there are very heavy local rates, because of the expenditure of the German municipalities. As everybody knows, they are very enterprising—very much more enterprising than our municipalities are with us. There are many things in their municipal enterprises which we would not look at in this country. I am dealing with the question of capital going abroad. If capital goes abroad—if it goes to Germany, at any rate—it has to pay sometimes as much as 2s., and if the proposed new tax is imposed it will have to pay over 2s. 2d. in the £. Take the case of France. Has the right hon. Gentleman opposite read a very interesting article which appeared the other day in the "Morning Post" from its Paris correspondent as to what the effect of the new taxes has been on capital there, and especially capital which is invested in commercial enterprises? [An HON. MEMBER: "There is no income tax in France."] I am referring to the new proposals of the Government in regard to income tax. I am not the only Chancellor of the Exchequer in difficulties about the Budget. There are those of Germany and France who have also made new proposals. In France the proposal in regard to a super-tax on incomes is infinitely heavier than mine. These are two great rivals of ours in the matter of capital. France is a greater rival than any country in the world in regard to capital. I am not so sure that she has not more free capital than we have. It is a debatable point. She is an enormously wealthy country, and undoubtedly she has got a large reserve of capital for investing. She is our greatest rival in that respect. What is she doing? She is putting on a tax beside which mine is a poor insignificant thing. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the article in the "Morning Post." Well, that is the position in these two great Continental rivals of ours—I mean rivals from the industrial point of view. I might give the case of the United States of America. There are other taxes there. I think I heard an hon. Member say the other day that

    1961
    there are no death duties, but as a matter of fact there are in some of the States. There is very heavy taxation in New York, and it is growing. Really capital, wherever it goes, has got to pay this growing demand of the State for a contribution to public purposes, and, therefore, it is idle to talk about driving capital away. I am not sure that it would be better employed if it were driven to China or Japan. Take Japan. What happens there is a graduation up to 5s. in the £. Well, at any rate, you cannot go there. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Belgium?"] I am not sure that capital would be able to go there. It is a very small country, and I should be very much surprised to hear that there is really enough room in Belgium for all this huge capital to fly to. We have got hundreds of millions in this country, and I do not think that it could all find profitable investment in Belgium.
    The right hon. Gentleman has asked me with regard to the figures. Here I agree that they are not absolutely definite, but I will not say they are altogether conjectural. The question was examined very closely by a Committee over which my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean presided. The evidence was taken of Sir Henry Primrose and a good many officials. In addition, a very able statistician went into the question very closely. We accepted the most cautious estimate—that of Sir Henry Primrose. I think the view of the right hon. Gentleman is that it is a very cautions estimate, and that, as a matter of fact, the estimates of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington and of Professor Bowley are much nearer the mark. Sir Henry Primrose's estimate of the aggregate of incomes over £5,000 a year in this country is £120,000,000. Professor Bowley's estimate is something like £200,000,000. I agree that until we got the actual returns it would be perhaps impossible to say with anything like accuracy which of the two estimates is the more correct. But as the right hon. Gentleman has said we here introduce for the first time an obnoxious inquisition into income, I do not think he could have had experience of the working of the income tax. The only inquisition that is introduced now is the inquisition with regard to an income which applies to practically only 10,000 of the population. You have got to draw your net a little wide and serve notices on probably twice the number.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Sir Henry Primrose said you would have to send out 100,000 notices to get the 10,000.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is not the view of the Inland Revenue. I think it is the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester that probably it would be necessary to send notices out to three times the number. What is the present position? Very small tradesmen and considerable tradesmen as well have got to make declarations. Every professional man has got to make one. He has got to give a full account of his earnings, of all his income, from whatever source derived.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have been a professional man myself, and all I had to do was to return the income that I made from my profession. The resources I had from my savings or from any other source were not returned.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is exactly what I am saying, and I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for putting it in that way. He has got to render an account of the amount of his income derived either from his trade or his profession. That involves an inquisition of a much worse character. Most men would prefer having their books examined as to what their investments are to having the books of their trade examined. What happens now in a small country town? A tradesman makes a return and says: "My income is"—say—"£300 a year." If it is accepted by the income tax surveyor I believe that is an end of it. But suppose the surveyor says: "I cannot accept that; you are making more." The man has then got to take his books to be examined by him, and more than that, they are examined by the local Commissioners. The local Commissioners are people in the neighbourhood, and he has got to submit to his neighbours the books, not of his investments, but of his business. I am afraid the same thing applies to professional men, to whom it is an inquisition of a very obnoxious character. As a matter of fact the surveyors and Commissioners do their very best to make it as little obnoxious as possible to those who submit their accounts. ["No."] The hon. Member does not seem to think they do. At any rate, there are not merely tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands who have to submit their accounts not merely to surveyors but to their own neighbours. But, really, can these people object to going, I will

    1963
    not say through the same process, because it is a different one. They will have to submit their accounts, not to their neighbours, not to the local Commissioners, as my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out, but to the special Commissioners, who will be in the Civil Service. That will be a very different thing from the sort of process through which small tradesmen and professional men have now to go. I do not think that under the circumstances there is any real ground of complaint. If the right hon. Gentleman investigated the process in Germany he would find that it applies throughout the whole of the income tax. In this country you have got taxation at the source. In Germany the whole of the income is submitted; there is a system of investigation which probably we would not stand in this country; it is a very severe one. We do not propose anything of the kind here. We have done everything in our power to make the conditions as little oppressive as possible to those whom we are obliged to submit to this process. I do not see that there is any real protest against it. There is no man who has filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer who has not got information through correspondents. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives numbers of letters, and I do not find in the communications I have received any protest against this proposal. I think the general feeling among the rich people is that they can afford to give more, and they are prepared to give more. I honestly do not think that this proposed income tax has created protests. That is not the information which I have got, and I do not think it is the information which the majority of Members have got. Certainly there is no real resentment against this proposal. We have not made it oppressive. We have made it perfectly fair. The graduations are quite gentle. They go up practically by farthings, and the very maximum is not 6d., because we take £3,000 from even the highest incomes; therefore it does not reach 6d. in any case. Under these circumstances I submit that our proposals are perfectly fair. Seeing that we want to get in the money, I am not sure that this is not the fairest way of raising the £3,000,000 which we propose to get by this tax.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I did not think that the Government really seriously in-
    1964
    tended to continue the discussion this evening on this very important Resolution. It is now twenty minutes past twelve o'clock, and in common decency and fairness I should like to move to report progress and ask leave to sit again. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a little further information, and I desire to say a few words on his reply. I will not go into recriminations as to the number of times on which various other Chancellors of the Exchequer have moved the closure, and the times at which they have taken this kind of resolution. We are entitled to ask for further information. With regard to this super-tax which we are now attempting to discuss, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is all very well to talk of investing their money abroad, but where are they going to invest it. He has told us that in Prussia and in France there already existed, or was going to exist, a large income tax, and in some cases higher than the income tax he now proposes. I venture respectfully to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that Prussia and France are not the only two countries in which British capitalists are apt to invest their money. I think I am not exaggerating when I say there is a very large field which British investors do now utilise for investing, some in the United States, some in Canada, in the Argentines, in Egypt, in India, and various other countries, which do not at the present moment enjoy the luxury of the income tax, and in which the British investor would naturally try to invest his money. If he feels that he has been unfairly attacked by the imposition of this super-tax, he realises that he will be perfectly within his legitimate rights in investing a certain portion of his capital in other countries, and some of which I have already named.
    The Chancellor asked why should the income tax be treated as one of the great reserves in this country in times of emergency. I will not attempt to quote to him the various expressions of opinion from various predecessors of his in his great office. I have a vivid recollection of the present Prime Minister, when he was discussing the rate of income tax two years ago, I think, and when he distinctly told us that income tax at a uniform rate of a shilling in the £ was a serious burden both on capital and also upon income and upon wages. Then he also stated—I forget the exact words, but they were something to this effect, that it destroyed, or tends

    1965
    to destroy, one of the greatest reserves in this country in times of emergency. I shall have pleasure in providing the right hon. Gentleman with that quotation later on in this discussion. I think it very pertinent to the remarks the present Chancellor expressed on that topic.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the question of declaration. He said it is a ridiculous thing to assert that by this super-tax you are starting a system of inquisition into the income taxpayers of England. He said you have got that now for a large number of small traders who are compelled to make a return of their income. I quite admit that is an inquisition, but it is also sometimes evaded. The local Surveyor of Taxes estimates a certain man's income at a certain amount which he thinks it to be, and the man pays taxes on that. Then a year or two afterwards the surveyor thinks that taxpayer is not properly assessed and he puts up his assessment, and very frequently cases have occurred in which local tradesmen have submitted to their assessment being up to a greater degree than it really ought to be, simply because they do not wish to have their own positions disclosed to the local income tax collector.
    They have suffered the penalty of paying on an over-assessed income, because they did not wish local people to make an inquisition into their affairs. I do not know what machinery the right hon. Gentleman is going to set up for these declarations of income for the purposes of super-tax; but, as far as I could gather from his speech, he does not propose to allow the surveyor of taxes to say to a man, "Your income is over £10,000; therefore you are to pay on that." Although such a man's income might be only £9,000 he might be disposed to pay taxation on the higher sum rather than incur the obligation of setting out in a deliberate statement every penny of his income, derived not only from business, but also from his own personal savings. But as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he proposes to compel everybody who the surveyor of taxes thinks ought to do so to make a full declaration; and if by chance he happens to omit a small portion of income he will render himself liable to very severe penalties. I call that a real system of inquisition into a man's private affairs. The argument has been used that already over 750,000 income taxpayers make a full declaration of their income; but that is
    1966
    a very different thing. They make a full declaration for the purpose of getting something back; whereas you are now proposing to ask a considerable number of people to make a full declaration for the sole purpose that they may have the joy of paying a larger sum to the Exchequer. There is a very great distinction between the two processes, and an objection to which the Prime Minister himself drew attention a year or two ago when he quoted some of the very obvious objections to the imposition of a super-tax.
    There is another very obvious point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has apparently forgotten, but to which great prominence was given by Sir Henry Primrose before the Income Tax Committee, when he pointed out most clearly that a super-tax on large incomes does now exist in the shape of death duties. A man with a considerable estate knows that at his decease his successor will have to pay a large sum out of the capital value of the estate. Sir William Harcourt, the author of the death duties, told the House on several occasions that the obvious thing for such a man to do was to take out an insurance policy, which at his death would enable his successor to pay in one lump sum the large amount of tribute exacted in the form of death duties. But what does that mean except the payment of an annual sum by that particular taxpayer? It simply means that a man whose estate is liable to death duties pays an annual sum, which can be very easily transformed into an additional income tax. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the table handed in to the Committee by Sir Henry Primrose, he will find that the sum varies in amount, and that as the estate increases in value so the insurance premium may be explained as a larger income tax. And it amounts to this, that a man with a capital which produced him an income of, say, £5,000 a year, pays an additional income tax already of, I forget exactly, but something like 1s., and these larger incomes, which are derived from a capital sum amounting to something near £1,000,000, do actually at the present moment—or before this Budget was introduced—pay an additional income tax of something over 2s. in the £. Therefore it is quite unjustifiable to say that there is not at the present moment a very large super-tax on the possessors of large estates which produce large incomes. I do think the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should in fairness explain to the House what is actually raised from the

    1967
    incidence of these death duties at the present moment.
    Just one or two other points. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister introduced a new procedure into the income tax when he indicated that a man with an earned income should pay at a less rate than the man with an unearned income. That is very fair in certain cases. I pointed at the case of a man who has been very industrious, toiled hard all his life, and has managed to save a certain amount which produces him an income for the declining years of his life. The right hon. Gentleman gave way very fairly on the question of pensions. He accepted an Amendment to consider the income derived from a pension as earned income. He declined to give way on the proposition to consider income derived from savings as earned income. Though it may have been difficult to carry out, I do feel very strongly that this has created a very great injustice on a very deserving class of the community. It is doubly accentuated in this Budget. We find in incomes under £3,000 a year that a man who is fortunate enough to have an unearned income, or is living on a pension, will pay 9d. in the £, whilst a small man, a man whose total income may be just over £700, pays the full rate of 1s. 2d. I consider that a very great hardship on a very large section of the community. They will not even have the consolation of knowing that the actual value, in the eyes of the Treasury Bench, of each of the children under 16—a provision made for those whose earned income falls below £500—is exactly equivalent to the dog tax.
    One other point: no exemption, abatement, or relief, under the Income Tax Act will be given to any person who is not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That Resolution is not before the Committee.
    Mr. HICKS BEACH: I may have some opportunity of dealing with it later on.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmoved: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Resolution to be reported this day; Committee also report Progress; to sit again this day.
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-two minutes before One o'clock.