Commons Sitting of 20 May 1909

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Conway Gas Bill [Lords],
Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Bead a second time, and committed.

MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY.
The Comptroller of the Household (the Master of Elibank) brought up the following Message from His Majesty the King: "I have read your Address praying that I will make an Order in Council under the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897, a draft of which was presented to your House on the 16th February last. I will comply with your advice."
TUBERCULOSIS.
Mr. W. HUDSON: I beg to present a Petition from the National Union of Public Health Authorities, in which it is stated that a large number of representatives of city and town councils, as well as the Durham County Council, pray that legislation may be introduced for the purpose of preventing tuberculosis, both human and bovine.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Egyptian Loan.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Egyptian Government has in contemplation a public loan which shall not be under the control of the Caisse de la Dette; whether such loan was proposed in connection with the development of the Soudan; and, if so, whether there was any connection between the proposed borrowing operation and any financial transaction between the Khedival Government and the Suez Canal Company?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): It may possibly be necessary, in the future, to raise a loan, the proceeds of which would be applied to the development of the Soudan, but so far as I am aware no definite project of the kind is at this moment in contemplation.

  Suez Canal.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government undertook, in connection with the French entente, that the rights of the Khedivial Government of Egypt should be ultimately be sold to the Canal Company; whether negotiations are now in progress between the Canal Company and the Egyptian Government for the transfer to the former of the rights of the latter in the Suez Canal; or whether any change was contemplated as regards the present status and proprietorship of the Khedival Government with regard to the Canal?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.

  British Vice-Consul at Kiel.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the British consular agent at Kiel is a consul or a vice-consul; and whether he is British-born or a British subject?
  Sir E. GREY: As I stated on the 11th instant, in reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the British Vice-Consul at Kiel is a German subject.

  Affairs in Persia.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of important developments since the completion of the Blue Book on affairs in Persia up to last November, he could hold out any hope of furnishing a supplemental Report in the near future bringing matters up to a more recent date?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not at present in a position to name a definite date, but further papers in continuation of the Blue Book recently issued are in course of preparation.

  Russian Troops in Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he could

  545
  state how many Russian troops were at present in Persian territory; and who was at present governing the city of Tabriz?
  Sir E. GREY: The number of Russian troops at present in or near Tabriz is understood to be about 4,000, and there are also small detachments which have been sent to reinforce the guards already stationed at Russian Consulates in other towns in the North of Persia. The city of Tabriz is under the Deputy-Governor, the Ijlal-uI-Mulk, a prominent local Nationalist leader, who has just been appointed at the request of the town, and who is in charge pending the appointment of a regular Governor.

  Egyptian Press Law.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Press Law, which has lately been revived in Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: The law in question was laid before Parliament in 1882, and the hon. Member will find the text of it in Parliamentary Paper Egypt No. 5 of that year, from page 18 onwards. A reference to page 4 of Sir Eldon Gorst's last annual Report will show that it is only intended to revive those sections of the law which concern the registration and control of news-papers and the presses where they are printed.

  Government of Bushire.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether British sailors are still in possession of Bushire; what number have been landed; at whose request the landing took place, and what were the grounds on which the landing was called for; who is at present in control of the government at Bushire; who collects the Customs duties; and to whom are the duties paid?
  Sir E. GREY: In view of the improvement in the situation at Bushire, authority has been sent for the withdrawal of the British sailors, but I have not heard yet whether withdrawal has been effected. One hundred bluejackets were originally landed at the request of His Majesty's Consul-General at Bushire, who, together with the other Consular officers, considered such action necessary for the protection of foreign life and property, in view of the presence of armed tribesmen from the interior. The late Governor, the Darya Begi returned to the town on May 10th and
  546
  was received cordially by the inhabitants. The Customs continue, as far as I am aware, to be collected by the ordinary Customs officials, but the present arrangement as to the disposal of the dues is that they are paid to the Imperial Bank of Persia to the account of the Director of Customs, who may not, pending the settlement of the constitutional troubles, withdraw the money without the Bank's consent. This arrangement is made in pursuance of an agreement previously made with the Persian Government, under which interest on certain existing British loans to Persia was to be provided out of the proceeds of the Bushire Customs dues, and is carried out with the approval of the Nationalists of Bushire.

  Osman Digna.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government still objected to having the Dervish prisoner Osman Digna examined by an independent medical expert as to his mental condition; and, if so, on what grounds the refusal is made?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know whether the Egyptian Government do raise any objections, but I am satisfied that Osman Digna is being well treated, and it must be left to the Egyptian Government to decide whether such examinations are necessary or desirable.

  Accidents in Egypt.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can obtain from the Egyptian Government statistics of the number of persons killed and injured by tramway accidents in Cairo and by railway accidents throughout Egypt in the past year?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know whether such statistics are available, but I will inquire of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo, and request him to obtain and forward them should it be possible to do so.

  Police System in Egypt.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the surplus of revenue announced in the last Egyptian Budget, he would urge upon the Egyptian Government the expediency of making better provision for the policing of Cairo and for the reconstruction of the police system throughout Egypt?
  Sir E. GREY: It is clear from Sir Eldon Gorst's Report for 1908 that the Egyptian Government are fully alive to the urgency of the question referred to, and I do not consider that the interference of His Majesty's Government is necessary on the subject.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (Rewards).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the total amount of money awarded to the Royal Irish Constabulary during the six months ended the 31st of December for approved police duty; what proportion of this was allocated for the reward of officers and men engaged in alleged disturbed districts for zeal in the suppression and detection of offences connected with cattle - driving and other agrarian matters; and what proportion was allocated for the reward of officers and men for the efficient performance of ordinary police duty?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Inspector-General informs me that no such distinction as that suggested in the question is made in according rewards for good police work. On examination of the list of rewards it appears that the amount granted in the six months ended 31st December last for good duty in connection with cattle-driving and other agrarian offences, and for duty arising out of the disturbed state of certain localities, was £221, and that the amount paid for good duty in other cases during the same period was £91, making a total of £312.

  Captain Harkness', Garryfine (Limerick), Tenantry.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary is he aware that a number of tenants on the estate of Captain Harkness, situate at Garryfine, Bruree, in the county of Limerick are refusing to sign agreements to purchase their holdings until the Dunworth family are reinstated in their evicted farm on the estate; if he can say what action the Estates Commissioners were taking with R. M. D. Saunders, who was in occupation of the farm, with the view to bringing about their reinstatement; and if he can say whether the Commissioners were taking any steps to get a number of the tenants to agree to purchase before having settled the Dunworth case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that certain tenants on this estate have not agreed to purchase their holdings, apparently for the reasons stated in the question. The estate has recently been inspected, and the Commissioners will consider their inspectors' report at an early date. The answer to the concluding paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an inspector of the Estates Commissioners went to these tenants and told them that unless they agreed to sign the agreements the remainder of the estate would be declared a settled estate? Had he the authority of the Estates Commissioners for doing so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge of that matter, but I will inquire.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I have a letter to that effect.

  Extern Teachers of Irish.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is now in a position to state when payment will be made to those extern teachers of Irish from whom it has been withheld.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that payment has now been made to such teachers in all cases in which Treasury authority has been given and the essential conditions of the regulations have been fulfilled.

  Limerick Pension Appeal (Bridget Connors).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he could say on what grounds the Local Government Board refused, on appeal, to grant Mrs. Bridget Connors, of Duxtown, in the Ballingarry sub-committee district, county Limerick, an old age pension, having regard to the fact that she was 74 years of age, that on the marriage of her son in February, 1909, she gave her holding to him on consideration of £5 a year, and also having regard to the fact that the sub-committee allowed the pension to her?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mrs. Bridget Connors at the time of the passing of the Old Age Pensions Act was in occupation of a good, well-stocked farm of 35 acres of land in county Limerick. In February last she assigned her farm to her son for £30 and an annuity of £5, and upon certain con-

  549
  ditions as to her maintenance. Four or five days afterwards she claimed a pension on the grounds that her means did not exceed £31 10s. per annum. The pension officer reported against the pension, but the Committee allowed the full amount of 5s. a week. The pension officer appealed, and the Local Government Board upheld the appeal, and disallowed the claim under section 4 (3) of the Old Age Pensions Act.
  Mr. KETTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of these appeals, and the reasons of the Local Government Board for allowing them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have applied to know if it be possible, and am informed that at present it cannot be done, as it would involve the expenditure of a great deal of time.

  Goodall Estate, County Roscommon (Tenancy Agreements).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners have received agreements made between the tenants and landlord on the Goodall estate in county Roscommon; whether their attention has been directed to the fact that some of these agreements related to grass farms from which in years past tenants has been evicted and that a portion of the tenants on the estate had refused to sign agreements; whether the matter has yet come before the Commissioners for definition as to whether agreements relate to an estate, and, if so, with what result; and if he will state whether the landlord has initiated proceedings under section 11 for the sale of the grass lands and of these holdings, and against the tenants who refused to join in the direct sale?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that a portion of this property has been sold direct to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and that the owner has instituted proceedings to sell to the Commissioners under section 6 of the Act the holdings of the tenants who did not agree to purchase and some untenanted land.

  Dublin University Commissioners (Report).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he will cause to be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper, together with the statutes of the National University of Ireland and of its constituent colleges, the Report to be presented by the Dublin Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Report referred to has not yet been received. When I have had an opportunity of examining it, I will consider, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commissioners, whether it may conveniently be laid before Parliament in conjunction with the statutes.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he could say whether the Local Government Board, in estimating the income of an applicant for an old age pension, calculate assistance given by his or her children, who frequently in Ireland help their parents to enable them to live decently?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that voluntary contributions to claimants for old age pensions must be reckoned in estimating their income.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: In cases of this kind, where children are members of the family, is it fair to calculate such assistance as part of the income?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether it is fair, but the Law Officers of the Crown say it is the law.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it done in England?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Oh, yes.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: In industrial towns?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The law is the same in both countries, and there is no differentiation in favour of either one country or the other.
  Mr. KETTLE: Is the administration in the two countries the same?
  Mr. BIRRELL: So far as appeals are concerned the administration is Irish. I do not know if you want that to go over to England, too.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary if he can say whether the Local Government Board, in calculating the value of free maintenance in the case of parents who had years ago given up their holdings to their children on their marriage, estimated it in some cases as high as 12s. 6d. a week, and in cases where there may be a family of eight persons; and, if so, whether he would take steps to see that such amount is considerably reduced?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In such cases the Local Government Board take account, as required by the Act, of all the benefits and privileges enjoyed by the claimants, or to which they may be entitled. The amount assessed depends upon the circumstances of each case.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that 12s. 6d. is a fair calculation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The opinions that families entertain as to the rate of expenditure on aged relatives vary very much, and sometimes the parents receive a higher measure of support and sometimes a lower measure. We cannot enter into that.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Who has to ascertain what measure of support they are receiving?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is the business of the Local Government Board when the case comes before them on appeal.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he could say whether the Local Government Board, in estimating the value of a small farm belonging to an applicant for an old age pension, took into account the cost of labour, seeds, manure, foodstuff for stock, and any of the losses incidental to farming, or whether they estimated the value from a schedule of the rent, rates, stock, crops, and quality of the land only?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In estimating the income of a land-holder the Board have regard to all expenditure which it may be necessary to incur for the working of his farm.

  Sir H. Grattan-Bellew's Estate, Moylough, Galway.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Sir H. Grattan-Bellew in the district of Moylough, county Galway, has yet been purchased by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, has all the land usually let on the 11 months' system been included for the benefit of the small holders?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are in negotiation for the purchase of this estate, which comprises a considerable area of tenanted and untenanted land. The purchase has not yet been completed.

  Roscommon Constabulary Accounts.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the County Council of Roscommon have made repeated protests against the amounts charged in the constabulary accounts for the removal of prisoners, for which recoupment has been obtained from the ratepayers of the county, and that as recent instances the county council have drawn attention to the charge of £15 for a brake and two cars for the conveyance of prisoners from Ballygill to Ballinasloe, a distance of 4½ miles, £2 for two cars from Kilbarry to Strokestown, a distance of 13 miles, and for subsistence and cycling allowance to 13 policemen on the same occasion amounting to £5 2s. 2d.; and whether there is any method of putting a check upon the Royal Irish Constabulary in regard to matters of this kind?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am aware that the Roscommon County Council have expressed dissatisfaction with the charges in the constabulary claims furnished to them. It has not been possible in the time available to make inquiry as to the particular items of expenditure referred to in the question, but the general explanation of the high charges for car hire in county Roscommon is that, owing to the unpopularity of the duty, car-owners are deterred from letting out their vehicles to the police at lower prices. The police are not in fault, and would be glad to have these charges reduced to their normal level.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared with an answer on Monday?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I hope so.

  Decrease of Crime in County Roscommon.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the declarations made by judges of assize and county courts as to the peaceable condition of county Roscommon and of the repeated resolutions passed by the county council, any diminution has yet taken place in the number of extra police stationed in that county; if not, whether that diminution is likely to take place; and whether, in fixing the new quota of free force to be stationed in that county during the next quinquennial period, it will be fixed upon the basis of the number of police now engaged in the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The extra force serving in the county of Roscommon was reduced by eight men from 23rd April last. The

  553
  question of fixing a new free quota of police for the county for the ensuing three years is now under consideration.
  Mr. HAYDEN: In fixing the free quota will regard be had to the number of police in county Roscommon, which we consider unnecessarily large?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That fact will, of course, be taken into consideration.

  Knockanes (Kerry) Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners propose to take any steps to induce Timothy Kennedy, who is now in occupation of the evicted farm of Denis Healy, of Knockanes, county Kerry, by compensation or otherwise, to leave the farm so that it can be restored to its rightful owner?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

  Morrogh Bernard. (Kerry) Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. JOHN MURPHYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the landlord of the Morrogh Bernard estate, county Kerry, which is now before them, is proceeding to evict Mr. Morty Buckley, a reintsated evicted tenant, in consequence of a dispute about a passage, which the evicted tenant considers essential for the use of the holding; and whether the Commissioners propose to take any steps to effect a settlement of this dispute?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 3rd March last in reference to this case.
  Mr. MURPHY: Having regard to the fact that since March last a writ has been issued against this evicted tenant, will the right hon. Gentleman press the Estates Commissioners to try and come to a satisfactory arrangement in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners are doing all they can. Their difficulty has been in this case that the evicted tenant has assumed so unreasonable an attitude.

  Disallowance of Pension (Kilkee, County Clare).
  Mr. HALPINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ascertain from the Local Government Board their reasons for disallowing the pension granted to the widow Johanna
  554
  Keane, of Kilcloher, Cross, Kilkee, county Clare, which pension was granted by the pension committee by appearance and other proofs that the poor woman exceeded the age of 70 years; and whether, having regard to the proof since procured showing by a Census Return that Mrs. Keane is 75 years of age, the Local Government Board will reinstate her case and cause her to be allowed the arrears of pension?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The pension officer appealed to the Local Government Board against the allowance of a pension of 5s. by the sub-committee to Mrs. Keane, and the Board disallowed her claim, as they could not find any evidence to show that she had reached the age of 70 years. Her family was found in the Census of 1841, but she was apparently not born then, as her name did not appear among them. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision, but if the claimant has obtained facts to disprove the evidence of the Census of 1841, and to show that she has attained the statutory age, it is open to her to make a fresh claim.
  Mr. KETTLE: May I ask if all applicants are to be bound by the Census Returns of 1841, in view of their tendency to inaccuracy?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They are not bound by them in any shape or way, if the Local Government Board are satisfied by evidence that the claimant has reached the statutory age. In this case they were not satisfied, but if fresh evidence can be produced the applicant has only to make a fresh claim, and the case will be again considered.
  Mr. KETTLE: What sort of evidence will be accepted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Obviously there must be some evidence, and not a general statement which cannot be relied upon. I cannot lay down any rule on the point.
  Mr. KETTLE: Will they accept the evidence of the sampler who knew this lady in her early years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can express no opinion about that.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: May I ask if in cases like these after the required age has been proved the pension will date back to when the application was originally made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand not.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: It is very hard.

  Caraun Lands, County Westmeath.
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Messrs. Reid and M'Endoo have owned in their own occupation since 1863 the lands of Caraun, county Westmeath; if he will state whether their resident agent is now, and for some time past has been, rigidly boycotted; if he is aware that Messrs. Reid and M'Endoo have agreed to sell all their tenanted land in the neighbourhood to the tenants in occupation and have handed over free of charge a bog of 70 acres, that compensations for malicions injuries to cattle on the lands of Caraun has been awarded, and that the Land Judge has already committed to prison 12 men for interfering with the possession by Messrs., Reid and M'Endoo; and whether, seeing that this land is the principal source of income of the owners, he will say if it is intended, by the means at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners, to force them to surrender it to organised intimidation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the lands in question are the property of two ladies, Miss Reid and Miss McEndoo, but I have no information as to the length of time during which they have been in occupation or as to any arrangement which they may have come to with their tenants. The estate is for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and a number of men were committed in July last for interference with it. The agent has been rigidly boycotted for some time past, but I am informed by the police authorities that his position is now somewhat improved. He was awarded compensation in January, 1908, for injuries to cattle on these lands. As I informed the hon. Member for North Westmeath, in reply to a question asked by him yesterday, the Estate Commissioners have decided to take no steps at present with a view to acquiring these lands.

  Purchase of Land, Heathfield.
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received a communication from Mr. John Fitzgibbon in reference to the purchase of the lands of Heathfield, in county Roscommon, and the subsequent sale of the same to the Congested Districts Board; whether this statement was accompanied by a letter from Messrs. Hoey and Denning, solicitors, Tullamore, setting forth the nature of this transaction; whether this statement shows that Mr. Fitzgibbon
  556
  made no profit whatever on the sale, and that, in fact, his expenses in connection with the transaction were not covered by the amount paid to him for the land, and that by the time it was concluded he was out of pocket; and, if so, whether he will correct the statement previously made that Mr. Fitzgibbon made a profit upon the transaction?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received a letter from Mr. Fitzgibbon enclosing one from his solicitors, Messrs. Hoey and Denning, from which it appears that Mr. Fitzgibbon did not even make the moderate profit mentioned in my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 3rd instant. On the contrary he lost on the transaction, the small difference of some £430 between the price he received and his expenditure on the purchase of the lands, and the redemption of the annuity having boon far more than swallowed up by fees, costs, and incidental expenses which were not referred to in my previous answer. I regret that that answer should have conveyed a false impression, and I am glad to have an opportunity of correcting it.
  Mr. MOORE: Does the account to which the right hon. Gentleman refers give credit for profits received by Mr. Fitzgibbon for the use of the land pending the re-sale?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the account on both sides, and I am perfectly satisfied it is correct.
  Mr. HAYDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the Congested Districts Board and their chief inspector were cognisant of every fact in connection with Mr. Fitzgibbon's action in regard to this sale, and amongst other things were they aware of the supposed receipt of profits during the period that this property was in the possession of Mr. Fitzgibbon?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It really is only fair to Mr. Fitzgibbon to say that in this transaction he acted on behalf, and as the friend of the Congested Districts Board. The sale was made through him and with his assistance, and I think it is singularly ungenerous that suggestions of this kind should be made in regard to him.

  Ancient Order of Hibernians.
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has any official information showing that members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, at Carrickmore,

  557
  county Tyrone, endeavour to compel others to join the order by means of boycotting, threatening, interfering with persons buying and selling, and with tradesmen carrying on their trade, and, still worse, by waylaying and beating persons who do not join their society; and, if so, what action does the Government propose to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that they have no evidence that the members of this society have acted in the manner described in the question.
  Mr. MOORE: Is he aware that this is the publicly expressed opinion of Cardinal Logue?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can only say, in a matter of this kind. I prefer the evidence of a policeman to that of a cardinal.

  Land Purchase (Ballybroghan).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a certain farm of 90 acres at Ballybroghan, near Tulsk, county Roscommon, on the estate of the late Ffrench Brewster, has been sold or is in treaty to be sold to the Estates Commissioners, or whether a neighbouring landlord named Mr. Richard Hague, J.P., who is himself an extensive grazier, has purchased, or is in treaty for the purchase of, the farm in question; and whether, seeing that in the immediate vicinity there are nine tenants with holdings valued at from 10s. to £9 who are anxious to have the 90 acres purchased by the Estates Commissioners for distribution amongst said tenants, he will say whether steps will be taken to secure this farm for these tenants.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that this farm is not being sold to them, but the owner has entered into an agreement to sell it direct under the Irish Land Act, 1903, to Jane Hague, who appears to hold the land as tenant under a judicial rent fixed in 1891.

  Coinage of Rupees.
  Mr. HART-DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Government has been called to the high price of foodstuffs now prevailing in India; whether this is attributed to the Government's currency policy and excessive coinage of rupees; and what steps the Government proposes to take in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. C. Hobhouse, in the absence of Mr. Buchanan): The Secretary of State is aware that the matter has attracted attention in India, and is in communication with the Government of India on the subject. But he cannot at present make any definite statement as to the conclusions at which he may arrive.
  Captain CRAIG: Is it not the fact that foodstuffs are high in this country owing to the policy of the Government?

  Questions (Point of Order).
  Mr. MONTAGUhad given notice to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the new taxes which he has proposed in his Budget fall more lightly on Ireland than on England or Scotland, and having regard to the greater benefits accruing to Ireland under the Old Age Pensions Act, he will consider the desirability of making the cost of establishment licences in Ireland equal to the cost in Great Britain?
  Mr. KETTLE: I beg to ask your ruling on a point of order before this question is answered. I wish to ask you two points. In the first place, whether a Member of this House is to be allowed to use the Order Paper to put forward as a matter of fact what is a matter of opinion or controversy; namely, as to whether these new taxes are to fall more lightly on Ireland than on other portions of the United Kingdom. The second point on which I wish to ask your ruling is, in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman who has asked it is, I understand, the secretary of the Prime Minister, if the House is not entitled to know whether this was asked on his own behalf, or in order to advertise the views which the Prime Minister himself has not the courage to express?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be very inconvenient if every hon. Member had to declare who was at the back of him in asking a question, and it would lead to some rather interesting revelations. As to the form in which the question is put, the views expressed can only be taken as the views of the hon. Member himself, and they are open to argument, or it is open to the Minister to contradict them if they are not his views.
  Mr. KETTLE: I venture to direct your attention to the special phraseology of the question which has been placed on the Paper. It is to ask whether, having re-

  559
  gard to the fact that these new taxes will have such and such an effect, and I wish to ask whether that is to be accepted as a precedent, and whether other hon. Members are to be allowed to put forward their own particular matters of opinion and have them stated on this Order Paper as matters of fact?
  Mr. MONTAGU: May I explain that this is a statement of fact, as based on an answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to a private Member?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly think it is undesirable to state that which has been the subject of argument, and has been constantly argued, as a matter of fact. It is rather, in my opinion, begging the question. I think, if my attention had been called to it, I should have asked the hon. Member to modify it.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is it not the rule that an hon. Member, in putting down a question, commits himself personally to the statement he puts into it—he commits himself to the truth of the statement that he knows is correct?
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is a matter which has been constantly argued, and will be argued during the course of the Session, and therefore I think perhaps it will be stretching matters a little too far to assume that it is a fact. By the end of the Session it may have been proved one way or the other.
  Mr. MONTAGU: May I put the question, Sir, leaving out that portion of it which you think ought not to be put?
  Mr. MacNEILL: Tell us how it will read as amended.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is difficult to amend the question now. Perhaps the hon. Member might postpone it till Monday.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly.

  Land Tax.
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether the War Office property, namely, the Manor Farm, at Ludgershall, near Tidworth Barracks, is to be rated at its agricultural value or, as provided for in the Budget, as building land; and will he consent to pay a portion of its ultimate increased value through the acts of a water company, should the latter carry their existing water mains along the frontage of the building sites on War Department
  560
  land, seeing that the War Department, would in that case be reaping a profit in increased value?
  Mr. REEShad also given notice to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether land situated in the immediate vicinity of a town in Middlesex, within 10 miles of London, purchased at £250 an acre, in order to prevent building thereon, but on quasi-public grounds, will be liable to the tax upon undeveloped land, such land not amounting to a public park, but being let for agricultural purposes at a rental of which the tax, if levied, would, it is understood, amount to upwards of 25 per cent.?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would suggest that it is useless for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attempt to deal with specific cases of this kind until the text of the Finance Bill is before the House.

  Spirit Duties.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to place an Excise duty, corresponding in amount to his tax on imported petrol, on petrol and similar spirit which is manufactured in this country; and, if so, what steps he will take to prevent illicit manufacture?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As provided in the Resolution passed on the 29th ultimo, an Excise duty will be imposed on motor spirit manufactured in the United Kingdom, and proper arrangements will be made to secure its collection.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the hon. Member know that putting an Excise duty on petrol will prevent the utilisation of the waste products of coke?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I do not know that.
  Captain CRAIG: Is petrol a raw material?
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now ascertained and is in a position to inform the House why his expert advisers consider it impossible to give manufacturing chemists relief from the increased duty on spirit in some such manner as is provided by part I. of the Revenue Act, 1906, as to spirits used in art manufacture, etc., proof being given that the spirits are used as aforesaid. I beg to say that I put this question on my own behalf and the Home Secretary has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The use of duty-free pure spirit is allowed in the laboratories of certain institutions for research or teaching purposes, but only under stringent regulations as to bond, etc. Part I. of the Revenue Act of 1906 has reference to the users of methylated spirit, which is already highly denatured, and the conditions therein laid down would be inapplicable to the use of duty-free pure spirit.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the effect his proposed increase in the duty on spirits, etc., would have on tinctures and other pharmaceutical substances and alcohol used in the manufacture of chloroform, ether, chloral, etc., and the consequent effect on the resources of such institutions as the Dundee Royal Infirmary, which it is computed would be affected to the extent of £170 a year; and whether he will allow exemption to such institutions as are mainly maintained by voluntary subscriptions?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Montrose, and which dealt with precisely the same question. I will give the hon. Gentleman a copy of that answer.

  Cider Duty.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue he has estimated to obtain from the new duty of £5 5s. on the manufacture of cider and from the wholesale dealers' licence of £5 5s. to sell cider?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to give an exact estimate of the revenue to be derived from these licences.

  Tobacco Duty.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the duty on unmanufactured tobacco being increased to the extent of 8d. per pound, if he will say when the new schedule governing the rates of drawback on manufactured tobaccos and cigarettes exported as merchandise from duty-paid factories will come into force, and what will the new rates of drawback be?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The new rates of drawback will be shown in the Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to state when they will come into force.
  Mr. HAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in publishing the new drawback has led to the discharge of large numbers of workmen?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I have not heard that.
  Mr. HAY: Is he aware that when the rate of drawback was changed in 1904 the change was made within a fortnight?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see that that affects this particular question.

  Foreign Investments (Income Tax).
  Earl WINTERTONasked what is the amount of identified income assessed to income tax as profits derived from income on foreign investments in the fiscal year just closed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid the information for which the Noble Lord asks is not yet available.

  Orange River Colony (Petition of Natives).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Petition, dated 14th September, from the natives of the Orange River Colony has yet been presented to the King; and whether he can now state the cause of the delay in forwarding it to the Colonial Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The Petition has been now received and will in due course be laid before His Majesty. It appears that the Petition was received in the Governor's Office the day after he left Bloemfontein on leave of absence for this country, and was unfortunately overlooked.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the Petition be laid on the Table of the House in view of the approaching discussion on the question of natives in South Africa?
  Colonel SEELY: I will consider that. I think there will be no objection at all.

  Mauritius (Appointment of Commission).
  Mr. BOLANDto ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the names of the Commission appointed to inquire into the administration of Mauritius, and when the members of the Commission are to leave for Mauritius; can he state the terms of reference to the Commission; whether the reference is in accordance with the terms of the

  563
  resolution unanimously voted by the Legislative Council of Mauritius at a meeting held on the 2nd February; and can he state whether the expenses of the Commission are to be defrayed by the Imperial Government?
  Colonel SEELY: The Commissioners are Sir F. A. Swettenham, the late Governor of the Straits Settlements; Sir R. L. O'Malley, formerly Chief Justice of British Guiana and Judge of the Consular Court at Constantinople; and Mr. H. B. Drysdale Woodcock, barrister-at-law. The Commissioners are directed by their Commission to make inquiry into the administrative and financial condition of the government of the Colony, particularly with a view to the introduction of economies, and to suggest such measures as may appear best calculated to restore and maintain the Colony's prosperity. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. The Commission will leave on May 22nd.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers in connection with the state of affairs in Mauritius since 1907; and, if so, whether these Papers will include the correspondence dealing with the financial position of the island, the recital of grievances against Mr. Cameron, the acting Colonial Secretary, the loans for improving the machinery of sugar factories, and the popular request for a Royal Commission?
  Colonel SEELY: As I informed my hon. Friend on the 5th instant, it will not be possible to determine what Papers should be laid on the Table until the Report of the Commission has been received and considered.

  Flax Industry (St. Helena).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked whether the flax industry at St. Helena is proving a success; whether there is any distress among the inhabitants of the island; and whether their general condition is entirely satisfactory?
  Colonel SEELY: The Governor of St. Helena has recently reported that owing to failure in the supply of mature flax leaves the mill may have to close down for a time, though not for very long. Apart from this temporary interruption (which was, however, foreseen when the
  564
  industry was started) and the present somewhat unfavourable condition of the fibre market, there is every reason to think that the industry has been, and will be, a success. I am glad to be able to say that the general condition of the inhabitants is much more satisfactory.
  Major ANSTRUTHER GRAY: What was the date of the last Report?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot say offhand. I was reading it only a few hours ago, but I will tell the hon. and gallant Member.
  Mr. W. MOORE: Is this industry a success in St. Helena because the Government have adopted the principle in this case of aiding by a bounty?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know what the meaning of the question is. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows that owing to the withdrawal of the garrison St. Helena was in great straits. It was therefore decided to take exceptional measures. It would be very unwise to draw general inferences.

  Somaliland (Operations of the Mullah).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement with reference to the present position of affairs in Somaliland and the operations of the Mullah?
  Colonel SEELY: No definite change has taken place in the position of attairs in Somaliland, but, as I stated in reply to a question last week, reports have been received of disaffection and desertion among the Mullah's followers.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman received any report from Sir Reginald Wingate?
  Colonel SEELY: Not yet. We do not expect to receive his report for some little time.

  Petition of Sumonu Ewumi.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the inquiry into the Petition of Sumonu Ewumi has now been completed; and if it has been established or otherwise that the said Sumonu Ewumi was deprived of a concession duly granted to him by the action of an official representing His Majesty' Government, and if the Petition is shown to be well founded adequate compensation will be given petitioner?
  Colonel SEELY: It appears from the report now received from the Acting-

  565
  Governor that Mr. Matheson, the concessionnaire against whom the complaint of Sumonu Ewumi was directed, has expressed his readiness to submit the whole question to the Supreme Court irrespective of any technical question of jurisdiction. The Acting-Governor is of the opinion that this course will ensure a satisfactory inquiry into the facts and an equitable decision on the merits of the case.

  Gilbert and Ellice Islands (Resident Commissioner).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether Mr. Telfer Campbell has been transferred from his position as Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; whether his successor is appointed; and, if so, who is the successor?
  Colonel SEELY: Mr. Campbell has been promoted to succeed the British Agent and Consul at Tonga in September next. His successor in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate has not yet been appointed.

  Pacific Phosphate Company.
  Mr JOHN ROBERTSONasked why it was that, after paying to the natives £50 rent, and so fulfilling the terms of the lease granting the exclusive right to raise and ship all the rock and alluvial phosphate on Ocean Island, the Pacific Phosphate Company in 1908 also paid £1,100 to individual native owners on that island; and what were the sums paid to those owners each year from 1900 to 1907, inclusive?
  Colonel SEELY: I understand that annual payments have been made by the company to individual native occupiers beyond the £50 stipulated in the original agreement, in order to facilitate the company's operations and to induce friendly relations with the natives. The payments vary with the size of each area worked, and the total amounts paid under this head in the years 1905-1908 are stated to have been respectively £430, £768, £951, and £1,148. For the years 1900-1904 the amounts were smaller, but the exact figures are not immediately ascertainable.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Have these payments been made in recognition of native rights, or are they held to be a mere douceur?
  Colonel SEELY: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the position of the Government is difficult in this matter, seeing that the ar-
  566
  rangement was made with the natives before the British Government had anything to do with the island. We are, therefore, in a difficulty in ascertaining facts which took place before our occupation. In this matter the company are acting direct with the natives, and we have no precise power of interference.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he believes the payments made were in recognition of native rights?
  Colonel SEELY: I can only draw the hon. Member's attention to this, which is what I have been given to understand, that the object was to facilitate the company's operations and to induce friendly relations with the natives.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the treatment the natives have received?
  Colonel SEELY: We have no complaints at present. I shall be glad to receive any information my hon. Friend has.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Does the rule governing secret commissions apply to this island?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think Sir Edward Fry's Act applies to this group.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyers (Speed).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the speed of the German torpedo boat destroyers of this year's programme is to be 35 knots, and that the speed of the British vessels of the same class belonging to last year's programme is only 27 knots; end whether, under the circumstances, he can assure the House that the British, vessels of this year's programme will not be inferior in speed to the German vessels?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): We have no official information regarding the speed of the German destroyers of this year's programme; but such information as we have does not accord with that of the hon. Gentleman.

  Anti-Torpedo Armament.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the Board of Admiralty are satisfied that a three-pounder gun is a sufficient anti-torpedo armament for any vessel carrying no other gun smaller than a 7.5, as in the "Warrior" class.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Board are not at this moment completely satisfied with the armament of any ships designed so long ago as the "Warrior" class.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider these former instruments of war suitable for meeting the newer anti-torpedo vessels—I mean vessels running from 600 to 1,000 tons?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the answer I have given covers the ground of the question. I say the Board are not at this moment completely satisfied with the armament of any ships designed so long ago as the "Warrior" class.

  Battleships (Delivery).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, provided for in the 1904–5 programme and subsequent years, have been completed in the time specified in the contract; and what are their names?
  Mr. McKENNA: None of the vessels referred to were completed in the time specified in the contract.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Why in every case was the contract time exceeded?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the general reason was on account of the great strike.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Would that affect dockyard ships, too?
  Mr. McKENNA: Oh, yes. Dockyard ships do not make their own machinery.

  Non-Effective Battleships.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships have been struck off the effective list since the issue of the Dilke Return of Fleets for 1908; and how many new vessels have been laid down?
  Mr. McKENNA: Nine battleships included in the Return referred to do not appear in this year's Return. One new battleship has been laid down since the issue of 1908.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that to lay down one battleship for every nine struck off is a satisfactory state of affairs?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may not have observed that the Return is issued in a different form this year. We have only put in this year ships of 20 years and under. Last year it included all ships.

  Unearned Increment Tax (Germany).
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to the fact that the proposals for an unearned increment tax now before the German Reichstag are not confined to land, but include the question of the unearned increment attaching to personal property; and whether he will consider the propriety of widening his own proposals as to the taxation of unearned increment to secure equal treatment of all property owners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend's suggestion has been brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Captain CRAIG: May I ask if all our legislation is to be based on German legislation?

  Department of Agriculture (Scotland).
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to make any provision this Session for carrying out the proposals twice sanctioned by this House during the present Parliament, and not seriously opposed, for establishing for Scotland a Department responsible to the Secretary for Scotland for the administration of agriculture in that country?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I hope that my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland will soon be in a position to lay proposals on this subject in another place.

  Committee on Aerial Navigation.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the duties entrusted to the scientific Committee on Aerial Navigation, and explain the relation of the Committee to the executive officers who are understood to be designing balloons and aeroplanes for naval and military purposes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is no part of the general duty of the Advisory Committee for Aeronautics either to construct or to invent. Its function is not to initiate, but to consider what is initiated elsewhere, and is referred to it by the executive officers of the Navy and Army Construction Departments. The problems which are likely to arise in this way for solution are numerous, and it will be the work of the Committee to advise on these problems, and to seek their solution by the application of both theoretical and experimental methods of research.

  Battleships in Home Waters (British and German).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships were maintained in full commission in home waters by Great Britain and Germany respectively in the year 1899; and what are the numbers so maintained by the two Powers to-day?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman gives no exact date for the earlier year; but, taking 20th May as the date in both cases, the figures are these for ships in full commission in home waters:—

  1899—

  Germany

  8

  Great Britain, none (except "Renown" passing through from North America to Malta). The Channel Squadron of 8 battleships was at Arosa Bay in Spain.

  1909—

  Germany

  20

  Great Britain

  22

  "Dreadnoughts" (Dock Accommodation).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked why, in view of the fact that the "Dreadnought" was laid down in December, 1905, and completed in October, 1903, no steps were taken until February of this year to carry out the decision of the Admiralty that a dock for ships of this class was required on the East Coast?
  Mr. McKENNA: The extent of the docking accommodation to be provided at Rosyth, and the degree of urgency with which it is required, have been continuously under the notice of the House for many years past, and I fear it would not be convenient to review the whole history of the scheme in reply to a question.

  Armament and Fuel Capacity of Warships.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the German unarmoured cruiser "Emden," of 3,540 tons, is armed with 12 4.1-inch guns, and has capacity for 900 tons of fuel; that the Brazilian unarmoured cruiser "Bahia," of 3,400 tons, is armed with 10 4.7-inch guns, and has capacity for 650 tons of fuel; and whether he will state in what respect the British unarmoured cruiser "Boadicea," of 3,300 tons, armed with six 4-inch guns, and having a capacity for 450 tons of fuel, is superior to these foreign ships.
  Mr. McKENNA: A direct comparison between these three vessels cannot be made in the absence of complete data for the foreign cruisers; but the fuel capacity of the "Boadicea" is very much larger than stated—in fact the figure would have to be more than doubled.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to in any way challenge the figures I have given with respect to foreign cruisers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I could not challenge them with any certainty. I think they are fairly accurate, but I really could not say whether they are entirely accurate. The figures in regard to British ships are accurate.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the British cruisers are superior to the others?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will observe that in the case of one foreign ship he gives the fuel capacity as 650 tons, and that of the British ship named as 450 tons. The British is more than twice as much as that, but I will not say how much more than twice.

  Battleships and Torpedo Destroyers (British and Foreign).
  Captain W. V. FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state how many out of the 175 British torpedo destroyers were launched before the year 1899; and how many of the 97 German destroyers were launched before that date?
  The Hon. and Gallant MEMBERhad also given notice of the following question: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the actual forces of battleships built and building in Britain, Germany, and the United States respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: For the reply to this question and the next by the hon. Member I must refer him to the Return issued last week in compliance with the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles W. Dilke), which will give him all the information he desires.

  British Warships (Armaments).
  Captain FABERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the British ships "Centurion" and "Barfleur" have been condemned since the issue of the White Paper by the

  571
  Admiralty last week; whether the ship "Renown," also in that Paper, has no guns and is not likely to have; whether eight battleships of the "Sovereign" class, also included in the Paper, have no reserve ammunition; and whether any similar deductions have to be made from foreign fleets?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. The reserve of ammunition of the "Royal Sovereign" class has been used up for practice to avoid wholesale destruction of cordite when these vessels are placed on the sale list, but the total of this reserve bears so small a proportion to the total of our reserve of cordite that no difficulty would be found in providing such cordite for ships of this class as might be required in addition to the outfit if the ships are called upon for service. I do not quite follow the meaning of the hon. Member's expression "similar deductions," but all that we know about withdrawals of ships since the date of the Return referred to in the question is that the French Minister of Marine has announced the intended withdrawal from the effective list of four second-class cruisers, three third-class cruisers, one torpedo vessel, and two submarines.
  Mr. ASHLEY: In reference to the "Renown," may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that ten 6-inch guns have been landed, and have been on the dock at Portsmouth for the last three years?
  Mr. McKENNA: They are kept in stock, and are ready to be put into the "Renown" at a moment's notice.

  Salvage Organisation.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether it is intended to establish a salvage organisation under the control of the Board of Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: The present course pursued by the Admiralty is to entrust salvage operations of an important nature to competent private contractors who make such work their sole business, the resources of dockyards being sometimes placed at their disposal. These resources often suffice, unassisted by private contractors, when the salvage work is of a light character. No change in the present system is contemplated.

  H.M.S. "Gladiator"(Salvage Tenders).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether, in connection with the salvage of H.M.S. "Gladiator" any other firm or firms than the one employed were invited to tender for the work?
  Mr. McKENNA: Offers were received and considered from three firms.

  Naval Repair Base (Tyne).
  Mr. HERBERT CRAIGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in considering the advisability of establishing a naval repair base on the River Tyne, the possibility of acquiring the Albert Edward Dock, which is a deep-water dock near the entrance to the river, with a view to adapting it to naval requirements, will be taken into account?
  Mr. McKENNA: Should any question of establishing a naval repair base on the Tyne arise, all such matters would be taken into consideration.

  Irish-grown Tobacco (Rebate).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the amount due on the rebate on Irish-grown tobacco is to be deducted from the grant of £6,000 a year which has been promised for five years to encourage the tobacco industry in Ireland?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): It has now been arranged with the Treasury that the rebate on tobacco grown before 1st April, 1909, will not be a charge on the new grant of £6,000 a year for five years. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have been authorised to continue a rebate of one-third of the duty on such tobacco until all of it shall have been cleared.

  Creameries in Ireland (Butter Competitions).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will explain what are the conditions required in creameries before they are eligible for inclusion in the Department's surprise butter competitions; and why only 42 out of a total of over 800 creameries sent exhibits to these competitions?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The conditions referred to in the question are published in the Department's Scheme No. 15, copies of which can be obtained, free of charge, on application to the Department.

  573
  With reference to the concluding portion of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 18th instant on the same subject.

  Dairying Industry (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he intends to add to the number of the Departmental Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring into certain matters relating to the dairying industry in Ireland; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of selecting a person who would represent the interest of creameries?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: The answer to this question is in the negative. The Committee will afford representatives of the many trade interests concerned ample opportunity of stating their views on matters coming within the terms of reference.

  Compensation to Workmen (Accidents Abroad).
  Mr. C. DUNCAN (on behalf of Mr. Barnes)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of Tomlin v. Pearson, in which the High Court decided that the protection afforded a workman under the Compensation for Accidents Act of 1906 did not apply abroad; and, having regard to the fact that such decision is clearly against the intention of Parliament at the time of the passing of the Act, if he will take steps to introduce a short amending Bill on the point?
  The UNDER SECRETARY of the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Secretary of State is aware of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case referred to. He can only say at present that the question will receive his careful consideration.

  Police Forces (Rest Days).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet seen the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of the Police Forces (Weekly Rest Day); and, if so, how and when he proposes to give effect to the recommendations contained in it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given last Tuesday by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for South Islington on this subject.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any idea when we shall have some definite decision on this important matter. Will he be able to give an answer this day week?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Home Secretary is fully alive to the importance of the question, and it is receiving the immediate attention of himself in conjunction with the Chief Commissioner of Police. I am afraid I cannot say definitely when a decision will be arrived at.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I say that I shall put down the same question for Wednesday next?
  Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Home Secretary if he can state what are the actual days of rest per year, including holidays, allowed to the police force in the city of Nottingham?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary of State has called for the information, and if the hon. Member will put his question down again next Monday he will be happy to give it.
  Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the respective statements made by a Reading alderman and the chief constable of the borough of Reading before the Select Committee on Police Forces (Weekly Rest Day) to the effect that the one day's rest in seven system has now been in operation in Reading since June, 1903, that it has answered the expectations of the town council, and has the approval of the community at large; and whether he purposes bringing in a Bill this Session applying this principle to the whole of the respective police forces in the country?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Secretary of State is aware of the statements mentioned in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the Committee say in paragraph 8 of their Report that they do not recommend at present the enactment of the Bill which has been referred to them, applying as it does to the whole of England and Wales. In view of this paragraph, the Secretary of State does not propose to introduce legislation for the purpose indicated.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering that all sections of the House are in favour of the Bill I recently introduced, the Government will give facilities for carrying the Bill through the subsequent stages?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In view of the fact that the Select Committee of which the hon. Member was a member reported against his Bill, I do not think the Government would be likely to give facilities.
  Mr. REMNANT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has really read the Report of the Committee? I think he would not have given that answer if he had.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have just read the paragraph in the Report of the Committee in which they say that they do not at present recommend the enactment of the Bill which was referred to them.

  Motor Cab Drivers (Licences).
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the police regulations with respect to the examination in motor driving of applicants for a licence to drive a motor cab; how many trials are allowed; and whether, if a man fails to pass the test after three or four attempts he is debarred from ever again being eligible for examination, and, if not, what period must elapse before he again becomes eligible?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Until recently no applicant for a motor cab driver's licence was allowed more than three trials, but on representations being made that some cases of hardship resulted from this limitation, the Secretary of State approved new regulations under which additional trials are allowed, on payment of a fee of 2s. 6d. for each trial after the second, unless it is manifest that the man is lacking in the qualities essential to make a competent motor cab driver. The number of trials ordinarily allowed is now four. After the first failure 14 days, after the second a month, and after the third two months must elapse before an applicant is re-examined.

  Registration of Patents,
  Mr. PARKER (for Mr. John Ward):asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the delay of about one month between the application and the registration of designs by the Patents Office; whether this delay is due to insufficient staffing of the Comptroller's Department; and whether, in view of the importance to pottery manufacturers of immediate production of latest
  576
  designs, he will take such steps as may be necessary to secure more rapid registration?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I have made inquiry in regard to the allegations of delay in the registration of designs at the Patent Office. I am informed that there was recently a considerable increase in the number of applications which threw the work temporarily into arrear. Steps were immediately taken to bring the work up to date, and they have already resulted in a marked diminution of the arrears. It is hoped that in this way all grounds for complaint will be speedily removed without any further increase of the existing staff.

  North Shields Mercantile Marine Office.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state under what section of the Merchant Shipping Acts did the superintendent of the mercantile marine office at North Shields issue a certificate as to the execution of an agreement with the men of the s.s. "Eastville," of Newcastle, on the 8th instant, seeing that the engagement of the crew had not been completed at the time; whether he is aware that seamen freely offered their services when a crew was called for by the master of that ship, thus affording the master ample opportunity of duly executing the agreement with the crew prior to the granting of the certificate referred to; whether his attention has been called to section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which provides that the master before proceeding to sea shall produce to the officer of Customs a certificate to the effect that an agreement has been duly executed with the crew; and under what section of the Merchant Shipping Act has the Board of Trade power to issue general instructions superseding section 118 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the action of the superintendent was in accordance with the instructions issued by the Board of Trade to superintendents under the general administrative powers conferred on the Board by the Merchant Shipping Act, Part 14. The practice is founded on the view that when a master has duly executed an agreement with his crew in the form provided by the Board of Trade it is not unreasonable to consider that the provisions of section 118 have been complied with, seeing that the superintendent has a guarantee that the master has

  577
  bound himself to carry out such an agreement. I am not aware that in this case seamen freely offered their services prior to the issue of the clearance certificate by the superintendent.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Part 14 of the Act only refers to the Act of 1906, and not to the Act of 1894, which definitely states that before the clearance for a ship is granted the master must have completed the signing on of the crew? Can the right hon. Gentleman refer me to any section of the Merchant Shipping Act which gives the Board of Trade the power to suspend the Act of 1894?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I would not like to be drawn into a legal discussion as to the construction of the various Acts under which the matter is administered, but the practice followed in this case is, I am informed, the regular and usual practice followed throughout the country. I understand that my hon. Friend is putting the question under an apprehension that the officials charged with the carrying out of this practice have taken more exceptional action in regard to a great district? If that is so, I would like very much to dissipate that idea, because strict neutrality and impartiality must be observed in regard to any trade dispute.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in almost every mercantile marine office throughout the country it is the practice on the part of the superintendent to refuse to certify the clearance of the ship until the signing on of the crew has been completed, and that this practice has now been dropped on the northern coast, and that this has only been done since the dispute arose between the shipowners and the seamen?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My information is that the, usual practice has been followed, and that nothing contrary to it has been done. If my hon. Friend can give any evidence on the subject I am ready to hear it.
  Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that when the Board of Trade Labour Exchange Bill is introduced I will call further attention to this matter.

  Cavan and Leitrim Railway.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN (for Mr. Thomas F. Smyth)asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received
  578
  copies of resolutions passed at meetings of the ratepayers living in the guaranteeing area of the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway Company, and held at Keshcarrigan, county Leitrim, last October, asking for an inquiry into the management of the railway company; and if this inquiry will be granted with a view to giving relief to ratepayers who are already heavily overtaxed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received copies of the resolutions referred to, which were addressed to the Irish Government. The powers of the Board of Trade with regard to the management of this railway are limited to the ordering of an inquiry on the complaint of either of the county councils or of 20 ratepayers in any contributing barony, or of the county surveyors, that there has been default in the completion, working, or maintenance of the line and the matters of which complaint was made do not seem to come under any of these heads. Some, however, of these matters appear to be such as could be dealt with either by the auditor appointed by the local authorities under the provisions of the Order authorising the railway, or by the arbitrators appointed to certify the amounts due from the different contributing areas to make up the sum required for payment of the guaranteed dividends.

  City and South London Railway.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any request from the employés of the City and South London Railway for the formation of a conciliation board; and can he now say whether the City and South London Railway Company have withdrawn their objections to the formation of a conciliation board with their men?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Such a request has been received, and I am in communication with the railway company thereon. I shall be happy to inform the hon. Member of the result.

  German Imports and Exports.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the monthly White Paper on Foreign Trade and Commerce, if he will see in future that the figures relating to the imports and exports of such countries as Germany, where preliminary figures are issued based upon purely nominal values,

  579
  are more clearly stated to be preliminary nominal figures, and therefore not comparable with British trade figures based on declared real values?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The facts to which my hon. Friend calls attention are clearly stated in the Introductory Note which appears on page 4 of the White Paper in question. I will, however, consider whether greater prominence can conveniently be given to the explanation of the difference between the systems adopted in the United Kingdom and in certain other countries (including Germany) in the compilation of preliminary figures relating to foreign trade.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have the explanation printed on page 5 instead of page 4, in order that the newspapers may not be led to think that the figures given on page 5 are comparative?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of a discrepancy which appears between the Official Report of the Debates and the Paper circulated daily with the Votes and Proceedings, I would wish to ask a question. I find that in the Division which occurred on the Convents Bill three Members are reported in the Official Report of the Debates as voting aye, namely, Mr. Glendinning. Mr. Archibald Grove and Mr. R. P. Houston; and I find that none of these names appear on the official Paper. As it is eminently necessary and desirable that we should know which is really the official record, for the purpose of reference, I should be glad if you would give us some indication as to which we are to regard as the official of our Divisions in this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt whatever that the official record is the record circulated with the Votes and Proceedings in the morning. I may say that I have inquired into the discrepancy between the two and that I have seen the two sheets and compared them. In one sheet the names of the three Gentlemen appear ticked off, and in the other they do not appear ticked off, and I have been at a loss to discover how the discrepancy has arisen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS).
Resolved: "That the Committee of Ways and Means have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]
Resolved: "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

ESTABLISHMENT OF LABOUR EXCHANGES.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill)asked leave to bring in a Bill "for the establishment of Labour Exchanges, and for other purposes incidental thereto."
I was fortunate to find an unexpected opportunity last night of explaining the principles and scope of the Bill which I now ask the leave of the House to introduce, with a great deal more latitude and at much greater length than the limitations of the Ten Minutes' Rule would have allowed. I shall therefore not attempt to take up the time of the House by going over ground which I have already covered, but will content myself by saying that this is a very simple and very short Bill. There are only three operative clauses, none of which present any controversial or difficult matters. The Bill is already prepared, and can be presented as soon as the House authorises its presentation; and then we shall trust that it may be fortunate and swift in its progress through this House, because, though in itself it is a very simple Bill, the administrative work in connection with it is very complicated and very heavy, and great efforts will be needed if the scheme of Labour Exchanges which it proposes to set up is to come into active operation in the early months of next year.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That leave be given to introduce a Bill for the establishment of Labour Exchanges and for other purposes incidental thereto."
Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: I beg to move: "That this Bill be read this day six months." I listened last night with considerable interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in which he explained the scheme of Labour Exchanges, and I was highly amused with some of my hon. Friends behind me who were most enthusiastic over this proposal. I would remind my hon. Friends that the sailors and firemen of this country have had a Board of Trade Labour Exchange for about sixty years, and I am bound to say, as one who

581
has had considerable experience of the matter, that the Labour Exchange for seamen, as now managed by the Board of Trade, is an absolute failure. It is one of the places where seamen are never engaged. To run these Labour Exchanges for seamen costs the Board of Trade something like £50,000 a year. In various ports we have a considerable number of beautiful buildings, well and fully manned by Government officials, who are well paid, and the only work which is transacted in those Labour Exchanges for seamen is the signing of the agreement between the crew and the master of the ship. But as to these being of any real value, either in the way of assisting seamen to obtain employment or directing them where to look for employment, after 50 years' experience I have come to the conclusion that they are absolutely useless. We are asked by this Bill to incur an expenditure of £200,000 a year, to erect buildings in different parts of the country, and to have permanent officials in charge of them. If the officials who are to be appointed by the Board of Trade do no more for British workmen than has been done for British seamen, then I venture to say that public money will be absolutely squandered. I am very sorry to take this attitude, but I feel somewhat keenly about passing a measure of this sort, though I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it with the very best intentions and with a view to helping the working classes. I cannot, however, conceal from the House my feeling with regard to the other labour departments, namely, the Mercantile Marine Offices, which up till now have been engaged in the encouragement of cheap Chinese labour. In one Mercantile Marine office, for one white man engaged there are three Chinamen employed. Every time a Chinaman comes down to be engaged, he has to be escorted by half-a-dozen policemen. This is to be seen every day at Poplar. If the Labour Exchanges which the Government Bill proposes to erect do no more for workmen than they have done for seamen, they will be a failure, and I, therefore, move that the Bill be read this day six months.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to do so. He can say "No."
Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON: Then I will say "No."
Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the estab-
582
lishment of Labour Exchanges, and for other purposes incidental thereto," put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, 24th May.

WAYS AND MEANS.

  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  [CONSIDERED IN COMMITTER.]
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  DEATH DUTIES.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the 30th day of April, 1909, there shall be substituted for the rates of estate duty set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1907, the following rates:—

  Where the principal value of the estate

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

  £

  £

  Exceeds 100

  and does not exceed 500

  1

  Exceeds 500

  and does not exceed 1,000

  2

  Exceeds 1,000

  and does not exceed 5,000

  3

  Exceeds 5,000

  and does not exceed 10,000

  4

  Exceeds 10,000

  and does not exceed 20,000

  5

  Exceeds 20,000

  and does not exceed 40,000

  6

  Exceeds 40,000

  and does not exceed 70,000

  7

  Exceeds 70,000

  and does not exceed 100,000

  8

  Exceeds 100,000

  and does not exceed 150,000

  9

  Exceeds 150,000

  and does not exceed 200,000

  10

  Exceeds 200,000

  and does not exceed 400,000

  11

  Exceeds 400,000

  and does not exceed 600,000

  12

  Exceeds 600,000

  and does not exceed 800,000

  13

  Exceeds 800,000

  and does not exceed 1,000,000

  14

  Exceeds 1,000,000

  15."

  —[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Mr. J. F. MASON (Windsor): The Attorney-General, in the speech which he delivered yesterday afternoon, told us that he and his friends did not deny that all taxes had an injurious effect upon in dustry as a whole. But later on in that speech he made another statement. He said:—
  "With regard to the general complaint of the extent to which this tax and all taxes deplete the capital of the community, when is the time to remember that and when is the proper occasion for all this eloquence? Not when you are voting for the tax, but when you are voting the expenditure; that is the time for it."

  583
  The Attorney-General and his colleagues hardly bore that maxim in mind last year when they brought forward their non-contributive old age pension scheme, for discussion of the means to be found to carry out that scheme was hardly encouraged at that time. The hon. and learned Gentleman through the whole course of his speech, I think, assumed, or at all events he did not deny, that all taxes were equally bad so far as their effect on industry is concerned, whether they are imposed on capital or whether they are imposed upon income; and it is upon this point I wish to join issue with him. We all know that with very small exceptions the national capital is the aggregate capital in the hands of individuals, just as we know that the national income, with very small exceptions, is the aggregate income in the hands of individuals. Does anyone suggest that it is a matter of indifference whether a man lives upon his income or spends his capital, and if it is not indifferent in the case of the individual how can it be indifferent in the case of the nation? I do not hesitate to say that so far as this kind of taxation is desirable and necessary, I infinitely prefer the income tax to this form of tax on capital, which is called estate duty. I prefer the income tax, because you then take to a considerable extent, if not to its whole extent, income which would partly, at any rate, be spent unproductively, and so far as you take the margin of capitalisation available you take it before it is capitalised and not when the capitalisation has taken place. In approaching this question I endeavoured to do so from the point of view of what is in the interests of the nation as a whole, and to eliminate as far as possible from my mind the effect of these taxes on individuals or on a class. I have not gone into the details of the schemes that are proposed. The broad fact is that in these capital taxes you are seizing blocks of capital and you are destroying them, at the same time that by income tax you are necessarily destroying to some extent the source from which alone capital can be built up. I know that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite object to any reference to Socialism in regard to their Budget. I do not propose to make any reference to Socialism other than to say that in Socialism we have the suggestion to nationalise capital and to nationalise the means of production. But, after all, so far as I know, the Socialists propose to keep their
  584
  capital as capital. The Socialists claim that wealth is produced solely by labour. Take care that in these forms of taxation in which you are now embarking you do not act as if wealth could not be produced, because you are here discouraging the creation of wealth, and at the same time destroying wealth that has been already created.
  I do not think that anyone would deny that capital is already more heavily taxed in this country than elsewhere, and it is equally true that capital in this country has to face a far greater amount of competition with other nations than it has in the case of most of our rivals. For those reasons it is more profitable to invest capital in many other countries, in most other countries, than it is to do here. I think it is not surprising to find that the hens, when they discover their eggs to be wantonly stolen, are apt to stray out and lay in foreign hedgerows. This tendency to tax capital must inevitably have the effect of making capital dearer, and I think it is hardly disputed that cheap capital is as essential to the welfare of the country, and especially of the working classes, as is cheap food. After all, cheap capital means more employment and more work, and the fact is that cheap capital is the most essential thing to this country's prosperity. It is the one thing we should secure here to provide if we desire to continue on the road to prosperity.
  So far as the proposal immediately before us goes, to increase the amount of money raised by the death duties, I admit that there would be less objection to such a proposal if the money were to be applied in time to the Sinking Fund, paying off the National Debt, because in doing that you are getting rid of a national liability. But the moment you apply it as you propose to do to your everyday national expenditure to that extent you are simply melting down capital into cash and dissolving it away. I know you will say of the case of which I am speaking that it is capital which is more or less movable and not land. But in the case of a millionaire you take £150,000 worth of capital; you melt that down. You say you cannot melt down capital which is fixed. That is quite true; but when you throw on the market a block of £150,000 worth of capital, that block has got to be absorbed, and can only be absorbed by taking the liquid capital which is in the market, and which, were it not for that

  585
  block, would be used for the extension of industry, and in that way the creation of wealth.
  The Budget is put forward as being in the interests of the poor, but I think it assumes too much in assuming that one mart can be made richer only by making another poorer. It seems to me to neglect the possibilities of creating fresh wealth and of making the nation as a whole richer without making anybody in particular poorer. Let us consider for a moment the proposal which is before us to continue this destruction of capital for a period of years. Since the year 1894 we have already in this way liquidated 250 millions of capital in the shape of death duties, and by the increase which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that will be raised in the next 15 years from 250 millions to something like 350 millions. In other words, it is now proposed that during one generation we shall have liquidated an amount of capital equal to some 600 millions, a sum nearly approaching the total of the National Debt. I think that can hardly be called collecting eggs, but rather destroying the hen. This liquidating of capital is in some ways the road of bankruptcy. A nation, like an individual, should live on its income, and what is economically true of the individual's case is true of the national case. In my opinion dipping into capital for ordinary expenditure is a thing that should only be done as a last resort and in some national emergency. To dip into capital habitually is certain to spell bankruptcy in the end.
  I am absolutely opposed to this policy of providing for annual expenditure out of capital. I think that the yearly expenditure of a nation, like that of an individual, should be provided for from the yearly income, and if social reform or any other expenditure can only be provided for by dipping into and melting down a large slice of capital, then I say the answer is that that expenditure is a luxury which the nation under those circumstances cannot afford. It is quite evident that the order of precedence is to ascertain what the national income is, and, bearing in mind that it is a very small amount, you must regard that as the taxable maximum, and that every time that you go beyond that maximum, say, for some great national emergency, you are to that extent eating into the financial vitals of the nation as a whole. I believe also that when you do eat into capital because of some national emergency you
  586
  should bear in mind that it is your duty to repair the mischief at the first possible opportunity. To a large extent for 15 years past we have been eating into the financial vitals of the nation, and will anybody deny that there may not be some considerable connection between the course that we have followed and the present condition of unemployment? To my mind, we have been following a course that is killing the goose that laid the eggs. I believe that such a course, aggravated as it is proposed to be now, and possibly often will be proposed again, such a course must in the end lead to a very considerable depletion of capital, and that that can only be accompanied by scarcity of employment growing greater from one year to the other. As Lord Milner said the other day, you cannot indefinitely take water from a well without lowering its level. Such a policy seems to rob a nation of its capital and simply destroy its assets.
  The Resolution that is before us, and, in fact, the Budget as a whole, is always supported by the suggestion that after all you are only taking money from the rich. So be it; but when you discriminate between one class and another it seems to me essential to remember different purposes to which the money of the rich and the poor may respectively be put. The incomes of the poor are, for the greater part, employed in meeting necessary expenditure. There is only a small margin available for capitalisation, and that margin is practically represented in the capital held by the friendly societies and similar bodies. And as soon as that is capitalised of course it is raided by taxes in the nature of the one we are considering, and more especially by those proposed in the case of land. It is principally from the incomes of the more well-to-do classes that you have the margin which is available for starting fresh enterprises, and we must always remember that it is only by starting fresh enterprises to replace those that are decaying or those that are failing, and thus of finding new capital that we can make real addition to the national wealth and to national employment. If you intend, as you do, to reduce this margin of income of the well-to-do classes, and therefore to reduce the source from which fresh capital can be built up, it seems to me that that is all the more reason why you should avoid, as far as you possibly can, the destruction of the capital which already exists to only too small an extent in this country.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Those who have followed the course of this Debate will, I

  587
  think, agree that it has been remarkable not so much for what has been said, as for what has been left unsaid. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) was something of an exception to the general rule. He is, I think, the first speaker who has attacked death duties in principle. Practically no one else has assailed the principle. It has been confessedly accepted as part of the financial system of the country by Members in all parts of the House, and that, I think, in itself, makes this Debate memorable as a triumphant vindication of Sir William Harcourt's foresight and practical sagacity when he placed these death duties on something like their present footing. When he proposed them they were assailed in principle. Members in Opposition did not accept them; they used very violent language in regard to them; and they were going to repeal them the moment they came into power. Within a year the Opposition had the opportunity of repealing the death duties, but they did nothing of the kind. They accepted them, because the prophecies which they had made had been falsified, and because they found that in the death duties there was a prolific source of revenue, the collection of which inflicted no great hardship upon anyone. Since that time the revenue from the death duties has been steadily increasing—or perhaps I should not say quite steadily, because there has been at times a retrogression, as last year, when the amount realised was a million or so less than in the preceding year. But although the rise has not been steady year by year, looking over the whole period it has been persistent, and instead of the 11 millions which were raised in the year 1894-5, last year we realised £18,370,000; and I think, looking to the history of the tax, it was natural and wise for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he required 16½ millions of money, to turn to the death duties as a source of still larger revenue in the future.
  Another feature of the Debate is that, on the whole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been criticised on the ground that he is trying to get too much money out of the death duties. Although I have, I believe, listened to every speech delivered in the Debate, I have heard no complaint that he is asking for too much money from this source. Until the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor, I think every speech in the Debate was taken up in putting the grievances of particular
  588
  classes of owners of property, and not in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking from property as a whole too great a tax in the scale now proposed. All through the Debate this Resolution has been treated as if it proposed a tax upon land-owners and the agricultural interest. There is no discrimination between different forms of property. The Attorney-General yesterday dealt fully with that point. Land is taxed, but so is every other form of property in which capital is invested in this country. Really, listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, one would be almost tempted to dismiss them all without argument, as the familiar complaint which they made so loudly when Sir William Harcourt brought in the death duties; when the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) talked about the approaching ruin and complete destruction of agriculture; when even so careful a critic as the present Lord St. Aldwyn declared that Sir William Harcourt had taken a step which would be deeply injurious to the agricultural interests; and when the right hon. Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long) said that this was not going to break up estates, as some of the Radicals on this side of the House hoped, but that the condition was such and the taxes proposed were such that land would be unsaleable in this country, and that no one would saddle himself with the responsibilities and difficulties connected with the ownership of land in such precarious tenure. Charities were to cease 15 years before the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) began to look into his charities list; and all sorts of evil consequences were to follow. All these prophecies have been falsified by the event. I confidently claim that agriculture to-day is considerably more prosperous than it was in 1894. I assert, and can prove by the figures of taxation, that the landed interest is not poorer to-day than it was before the death duties were put on. That, I think, is an answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor in regard to the depletion of the capital of the country. I see no evidence at all that there has been any depletion of capital by these death duties. I believe that, in the main, they have been paid out of income, as they ought to be, and, as I think, the present scale of taxation can be.
  But while I say all this, those who heard the speeches of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and other land-owners on that side of the House will

  589
  recognise that they are evidently labouring under a sincere sense of grievance. It is not the mere regular opposition to proposals of the present Government that animates the speeches which have been made. Anyone listening to them can see that hon. Members sincerely believe that the agricultural interest is being more hardly hit by these taxes than other forms of property. I want to examine the cause of that sense of grievance. I believe that though the actual amount of the tax is no more upon landed property than upon other forms of property, it does press more heavily upon the income derived from land, because land-owners are in the main content with a smaller return in proportion to the capital value of their estates than are the owners of property of any other description whatever. Owners of landed estates have to expend a large proportion of the gross rent of their property upon their estates. On a well-managed estate undoubtedly a great proportion of the rent goes back in buildings, cottages, fences, drains, and the various forms in which capital is invested in the estate, and in the management of the estate. I do not know what exactly the proportion may be on the average. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) yesterday suggested that 50 per cent. of the gross rental would not be too high a figure to represent the cost of management and so forth, and that the net rental of an agricultural land-owner could not be put at more than 50 per cent. of the gross rental. I think that that is a great deal too high, and that probably 30 per cent. would be an outside figure. In a great many calculations which are made, landowners forget to make allowances for the various outgoings on their part, partially in connection with estates, but outgoings which other men who have not estates have nevertheless to meet. There is usually a house on the estate, and there is the maintenance of the house, which is very often comparatively heavy. The house is frequently old, and costs a great deal for repairs and maintenance, and it is often large in proportion to the size of the estate. That may be a misfortune, but I think the net rent which the land-owner enjoys ought to be regarded as the amount which remains to him after he has made due allowance for the rent which the house would command if let to somebody else, and the cost of maintaining the house. He ought also to deduct from his gross rental that part which is absolutely necessary to be spent upon the estate in order to main-
  590
  tain the revenue and to keep the estate in good order. If that is done, I think 30 per cent. is a large amount to take off the gross rental.
  But whatever the percentage may be, my point does not lie there. I will take the figure of 50 per cent. suggested by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs. Why is it that land-owners are content with this small net return? It is because, unfortunately as I think, land has a value in this country altogether out of proportion to the annual revenue which it brings in to the owner. There is the consideration attaching to the ownership of land; there are the windfalls which have come to be associated with the ownership of land.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: What are they?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Undeveloped minerals, sporting rights, and so on. The ownership of the soil has come practically to mean the ownership of everything that is over the soil and under the soil. Therefore the agricultural value of the land is no measure of its selling value. As a matter of fact, even though one concedes that the not rent is only 50 per cent. of the gross rent, the selling value is based not on the net rent, but upon the gross rent; and estates to-day will command not 25 years' purchase of the net rent, but 25 years' purchase of the gross rent. The Leader of the Opposition shakes his head. I could give him plenty of instances where estates have commanded 25, 30, or even 35 years' purchase of the gross rent.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: You must deduct the standing charges first, such as land tax and tithes.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Certainly; but they are very small in numerous parts of the country, and land has largely been relieved of these standing charges. This over-valuation has two very unfortunate results from my point of view. First of all, it makes land-owning largely the luxury of the rich. Only a man who is comparatively well-to-do can afford to take 2 per cent. on his money instead of the 4 per cent. which men can ordinarily command. We have seen in our own time the small holders of land being crowded out. I am Member for one of the divisions of Westmoreland, and I know the neighbouring county of Cumberland. Those are two counties which were filled with small holders of land, who now have almost vanished. They have been

  591
  swallowed up one by one by other landowners who have incomes partly independent of the value of their agricultural land. It is not only injurious from that point of view, but it has an injurious effect upon agriculture, because this land is the raw material on which the actual agriculturist has to work, and he finds that his raw material is made dearer by the overvaluation attaching to land. It must be remembered that this is a comparatively modern phenomenon. I do not want to go back to ancient history; but this immense increase in the value of land as compared with other forms of property is quite a modern feature. For instance, the stock upon the farm 500 years ago would very often be worth the fee-simple of the farm, but in the present day, as hon. Members know, it is a very small fraction indeed of the value of the farm.
  What is the deduction that I draw from these facts, in the putting forward of which I have received very little opposition? What is the moral to be drawn? That is really the practical point for the Committee to consider. First of all, I agree with some other speakers—and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises it in the Budget—that the present deductions allowed on agricultural land are insufficient to meet the justice of the case And I was very glad indeed to hear my right hon. Friend suggest, in answer to the hon. and Gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) that he would be prepared to consider the question as to whether land should not be assessed under schedule D instead of under schedule A for income tax. I think that would be much fairer. I believe me original difficulty was that it was supposed that landowners did not keep their accounts very rigidly. I believe accounts of estates have been kept of late years much better. Whether that is due to the increasing pressure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or not—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is insensibly and by degrees getting away from the point.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Then allow me to put it this way. I think we can meet the case of the income tax by making deductions and fairer assessments, but I do not think we can meet the death duties by that. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) suggested
  592
  yesterday that you can meet these death duties by assessing land upon a proper valuation. He suggested, I think, 25 years' purchase, or 50 per cent. of the gross rental. I do not think you can do that with the death duties. They are intentionally based on the market value of the property itself. You may deal with the difficulty of the over-valuation of the land in the case of income tax by proper deductions, I see no way of dealing with it in the case of the death duties where you must take the market value of the land. There is no other method; otherwise you give a preference to the land-owner. What is the position? Let me take the figures of the estate of £100,000, which has been commonly mentioned in the course of this Debate. There will be paid upon that under the present scale—supposing it is just £100,000 and no more—£8,000 of estate duty. There will be some other death duties which may bring it up to £9,000, £10,000, or £12.000. Conceivably, in certain rare cases, it may be even higher, but I think those cases will be exceptionally rare. I shall not be wrong if I take £12,000 as the capital sum to be paid. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. F. Mason) says that this is to be paid out of capital. I think it would be very bad finance if the land owner or capitalist took it out of the capital of their estate. I think they ought to make provision out of the income of the estate. I propose to show how that can be done. I take a £100,000 man. If he has got his property in stocks and shares he will get an income of £4,000. Take the insurance at about £400. I am not taking precise figures, for it depends on the age. but still I think about £400 a year will about meet the case upon the £100,000 with which I am dealing. Now we see the grievance of the agriculturists in a concrete form. Four hundred pounds a year on £4,000 is 10 per cent. Four hundred pounds a year on £2,000 is 20 per cent. That is a grievance, and one which the other side used in this discussion. It is a real grievance for the man who has to retain his whole property in agricultural land. But I submit that the land-owner can meet the difficulty by selling a portion of the estate. Yes. I see a fall in the faces of hon. Members opposite. Supposing he sells £20,000 worth of land. It leaves him with £80,000. I am aware that that was denied yesterday by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. He said it depreciated the value of the estate. I do not think so. I think you are likely to

  593
  increase the value of the land by the free circulation of it through the selling of a portion of the estate. Let me here say the man who has £100,000 worth of land and nothing else is a very rare creature. Probably the case is a purely imaginary one. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, I think so, for he possibly has valuable pictures. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, it may be, but if a man in the position I have described sells £20,000 worth of his property what is his position? The income on £80,000 will be £1,6000.. He invests his £20,000 at 4 per cent., or £800 a year. His total income will therefore be £2,400. If he pays £400 for insurance, that will still leave him with a net income of £2,000 a year, which is exactly what he had to spend before the Budget of my right hon. Friend. Now I say the grievance has disappeared. The trouble lies with those who insist upon keeping their property in this particular form, which, we are all agreed, is an expensive property for a man to hold. They considered selling was a grievance Hon. Members opposite deplored that. The hon. Member for Chelmsford thought of the sentimental attachment to the estate of those who were brought up on it. I do not deny it. It is very real, and a pleasing thing in this country; but may I ask if only one member of the family feels a sentimental attachment to the estate? Is a love of the soil confined, too, to the sons of the family only, and is there none amongst the daughters? I submit the sentimental argument is a very small one indeed in this matter. The present system under which a large argicultural estate, with no other money behind it, is kept going is a cruel one for the younger children of these families. It means that one man in the family gets the whole of the property and carries it on, while the other members of the family are turned out into the world to earn their own living as if they were the children of poor men. Therefore, I do not at all deplore what I think will be one effect of the taxes to be put on. They may lead to the breaking up of estates into smaller areas. But that must not be carried too far. Nobody could afford to own land if you carried that right through, and therefore that is met by my right hon. Friend's Budget. The smaller estates get off with light duties.
  If I might make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, I would like to say that he might consider the bottom end of his scale. I do not consider the other end is too heavy, but at the lower end he might
  594
  look and see if he cannot make it easier for the people there—the holders of smaller plots of land. There might be a less steep graduation. Otherwise it seem9 to fe that the death duties can be met even by the agricultural interest in some such way as I have described, and as it will have the tendency to break up the great aggregations of land I personally welcome it as a desirable consummation. Just as I welcome it, and for the reason that it tends to break up the large estates, so may I be allowed to somewhat wonder at the Resolution which we are asked to vote upon presently with regard to five years. There is to be no breaking up during five years. Rather you are not forbidden to break up, but the incentive which at present exists to break up is to be taken away for five years. I really do not understand why that proposal should have been introduced. It makes in the very opposite direction to the other proposals of the Budget. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this proposal is going to be worked. As I understand, all gifts made within five years preceding death are to be regarded as part of the corpus of the estate, and duty is to be paid upon them on the scale made out. What is a gift? There is nothing to show in the wording of the Act—at least, there is nothing to show a layman; I do not know if the lawyers can help me out of the difficulty—what a gift is. There is nothing to show whether it has to come out of the income or of the property. Is a sovereign given to a small boy a gift of which an honest man must keep a record for the five years before his death? If that seems an absurd case, I may suggest that there are a great many men who will have to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend to whom the gift to a son starting in business of £1,000 is no more than the gift of a sovereign that I mentioned.
  Therefore I would like a definition of the word "gift." I was told when I made inquiry into the matter that the Estate Duties Office is very lenient. They interpret these things in a broad and generous spirit. Well, that may be all very well while money is plentiful, but when money is scarce the Treasury looks sharply around so that taxes may be made more prolific, and there is a more strict interpretation. But there is another objection to this, and that is that good account-keeping is penalised. The man who keeps no account of his money is the man you cannot find out. There is nothing to show where it has gone to. But if a man keeps

  595
  a careful record, then you penalise him, or, rather, his successor, to the ownership of the estate, because the duty is to be paid as the result of his furnishing information to the Treasury. Again, I gather from what my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General said yesterday that marriage settlements are to be exempt. I do not know why that is so. I think they are not exempt at the present time. If they are to be exempted, I ask why this preference to daughters? Why should the man who sets up his son in business be regarded as having performed a less laudable proceeding than a man who is marrying his daughter? Why is it considered undesirable that a man with a lifetime of experience behind him should give away his own property? Why should it be considered in the public interest for him to wait till death to distribute it? Why should he be considered to be making a disposition for the express purpose of evading the taxes? You do not want to make the period so long as to discourage a man from distributing, by way of gift to universities or public charities, or even by distributing the estate to his children, for he presumably knows how to distribute it far better than those who come after.. I have no figures, but I believe I am right in saying that there has been little attempt to evade the death duties. [Cries of dissent.] Well, that is my information. There were attempts when they were first imposed, but they were usually unsuccessful, because they were largely done by those who wished to reserve some claim on the property which they proposed to alienate. But where alienation absolutely takes place it seems to me in the public interest that we ought to encourage that rather than discourage it. I would plead with my right hon. Friend, while I heartily support his death duties, and congratulate him on having raised them, because I think he can get this extra money, that this five years' provision tends to prevent that more equal distribution of wealth, which I desire to see. I regret that he should have clogged his proposals with this provision, which I think is unworkable, and tends in the very opposite direction to the main proposals of his excellent Budget.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It is very gratifying to find that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down confined the whole of his speech to a special portion of the
  596
  subject under discussion. Certainly after the scheme put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken on the other side I am sure a great many Members of this. House will try to become owners of land. Now there is one characteristic about this Resolution which is not shown in the other Resolutions. It is this—we know exactly where we are. We know exactly the amount we would have to pay, and we will not have to wait until the Finance Bill is printed, which is the usual excuse put forward by the right hon. Gentleman to evade discussion. He cannot make that excuse in regard to this Resolution, and, therefore, we may hope for the pleasure of hearing his voice upon the subject. The chief point we have to deal with is the increased death duties in the middle of the scale. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down looks with pleasure on the increasing revenue which is to be derived by the State from the death duties. I cannot say I see any great pleasure in that respect, because I am certain that the increased revenue which we have seen in the last few years is not likely to be permanent. I believe this taxation will shortly reach the point where you will have arrived at the process of what is known as killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. With regard to the principle of these death duties, I certainly say for myself it is impossible to get away from the fact that we must have something in the nature of death duties. I think that principle was conceded in the year 1903. I am also convinced that the object of the promoters of the death duties was in no circumstances to dip into capital. It was the object of the promoters of the death duties that these duties should be paid out of income, and great care was taken during the life of the holder of the property or the estate so that it should be possible for his successor, without injuring the property or the estate, to be able to pay the death duties as a contribution to the State. I think that was the object, and I think a very good revenue was accumulated by the State out of the death duties, and what is more I believe that the death duties in their original form went a great way towards encouraging thrift in this country. There is another point in regard to the original death duties—I think they they were put forward by the promoters with the view to the better settlement of property, and they were only to be demanded once in a lifetime. The successors of the late Sir William Harcourt seem

  597
  to have departed from these views, and by demanding successive payments they do away with the idea of the settlement of the property. That was all very well so long as by ordinary thrift and care effect is given to the idea that these charges should be paid out of income, but the rapacity of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer has altered that point of view altogether, and at the present moment it is impossible that the Death Duties should be paid out of income, and it is well known that the only way these Death Duties can be paid is by dipping into the capital of the estate and property, which means we are dipping into the capital that belongs to the nation. If we go on in this way it must end in the opposite manner to that which ought to be the object of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, to gain the largest possible revenue with the least possible injury to the sources of revenue. I certainly hope that in the course of this Debate we shall hear exactly what is the object of the Government in regard to this matter. I do not know whether we will have the true cause put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, to my mind, has been exceedingly reticent as to the manner in which he accepts this proposal.
  We know perfectly well what is the object of hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway. We know what the object of the Labour party is. They make no secret whatever as to their views and as to their objects. They tell us that legislation should be brought in for the purpose of removing altogether the ownership of private property in this country. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is no better process if he desires to follow that advice than the system of Death Duties which he proposes to inflict by his present Budget. Our object is to point out to the Government the path along which they are progressing, and where it leads to. The path along which the right hon. Gentleman is progressing is one which carries him to the fullest extent to the advanced doctrine of Socialism. I think we can assume that by the incidence of these Death Duties we will be dipping into the national capital. If any Chancellor of the Exchequer takes it upon himself to dip into the national capital of this country I believe the only true and sound finance is that the national capital which he takes into the Exchequer should be used for defraying the capital charges of this country.
  598
  Up to the present time it is always presumed that the Death Duties have been paid out of income, and that the revenue from the Death Duties have been used as income in this country. I believe the only method that can be used with advantage to this country in regard to the Death Duties is that the money should be used for paying off the National Debt, and that it should be by no means looked upon as part of the revenue of this country. I do not propose, as I said, to quarrel with the principles of Death Duties. I only desire to quarrel with the degree in which they are levied. The money has to be found, but I object to the process of taxation as put forward at the present moment. There can be no doubt about it, but the proposals made in the Budget are calculated to discourage thrift in this country; there is no object for anyone to put by money for their successors to pay the death duties. This is a policy which will not encourage saving, and I venture to say it will encourage the community to bear in mind the motto, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for to-morrow we die." I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered these Death Duties from the point of view of the smaller estates. I have no doubt his object is to attack the larger properties, though the numbers of people who depend upon these large properties should be apparent to everybody. I venture to draw his attention to the case of the small agricultural landlord. He will be hard hit in the sam3 manner. The right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to hit the owners of large property, but the result will not be so easily attained in so short a time. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should reconsider the action he is taking in regard to the Death Duties, and bring forward duties that it is possible, with ordinary thrift and care, to pay out of income rather than dip into the capital of the country, which belongs to the nation.
  Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: I do not intend entirely to follow on the lines of the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Westmoreland when he said it is as easy to pay duty out of landed property as out of personal property. Landed property is not as easy realisable, and the selling of a portion of the estate may very greatly depreciate the value of the whole. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman has not yet entirely framed his Bill which he is going to found

  599
  upon these Resolutions, I should, in the first place, like to throw out a hint, and ask him whether he could not possibly see his way to making his great Budget more explicit than some of the great Budgets we have heard in the past. I think my3elf that one of the chief objects of taxation should be that individuals who have got to pay the tax should be able to form some estimate or idea of how much the tax will amount to. I think it was my first public appearance in this House when I spoke on the great Budget of Sir William Harcourt in 1894. I remember very well on that occasion Sir William Harcourt said the death duties were in a terrible state of confusion. I think there were no less than five different duties, and they wanted reforming. Sir William Harcourt said he was going to reform them— make things a great deal more explicit. He referred to the Death Duties of that day as the most extraordinary piece of legislation, which he compared to a tessellated pavement. I was very pleased when I heard him make that speech, and though I felt certain that I would have to pay a larger amount of taxation I was in hopes I should be able to form some estimate of what I would have to pay. After that great Budget passed and became the law of the land I was still doubtful about what the amount was.
  Nobody who is not well up in the law can possibly tell at the present moment what the law in regard to these Death Duties are. I am sorry that we have not got a layman as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may say I profoundly distrust the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe he belongs to a branch of the legal profession, and I am afraid he will still be hungering after that profession, and may leave these Death Duties under a mass of legal verbosity which will take an extremely good solicitor to be able to inform anybody how much he has to pay. I could give a good example from the very last Budget put before this House. There were three clauses in that Budget dealing with Estate Duties, and I am perfectly certain no one in this House who had not had legal training could tell anyone what they mean. I tried but I utterly failed—perhaps I may be very dense—but I know that I did accept the Prime Minister's statement—he was then Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there they were not increasing the Death Duties.
  600
  I had to take his word for it entirely, because nobody but a skilled lawyer could have understood what these clauses meant. I think it is one of the great faults in these different duties that it is almost impossible to tell, except in the very simplest of cases, how much the duties which will have to be paid will amount to. I think it is a great mistake that, in levying taxation, that in addition to those taxes put upon individuals, they should also have, for a certainty, piled up against them large lawyers' bills and bills for valuers and other people who have to be called in to find out what the amount a man will have to pay is. That, of course, to my mind, is a very great objection to this form of taxation, and, in addition to that—and this, I think, is a hardship upon all real estate—there is a second objection to these duties, and that is that they will fall with greater severity upon real property, owing to the fact that you have a great confabulation between the Treasury and the family solicitor and a good many valuers, which compels the owner whose taxation has increased to incur large legal bills for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money which he has to pay the Government in taxation. If you raise the money by mortgage you then have a further solicitor's bill for preparing the mortgage and additional stamps upon the mortgage. If you want to sell there is an extra duty on the conveyance of the land and another large lawyer's fee. After all these disputes which arise between the different parties concerned have been legally settled, and which the person who has to pay does not understand, then you have probably to find £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000, and when you come to deal with this you are taxed again when you are trying to raise the money. If I may be allowed to say so, I think the inclusion of the five years' period will almost make it impossible for executors to close the will because there will probably be continual actions and squabbles going on for some five or six years afterwards. In addition to all this we have had several cases where undoubtedly the Treasury, in the interests of the National Exchequer, have brought legal proceedings against the executors and the heir, and I think some of those cases have nearly amounted to what I may venture to call Treasury persecution. It may be that some man has a legacy out of a large estate upon which there are large debts; he may have been the remainder man, and through the death of a brother he may be quite a poor man,

  601
  and yet the Treasury comes down upon him for a very large duty. That man may feel that he has been unfairly treated by being called upon to pay such a large amount, and his solicitor may advise him that he has an excellent case of Treasury persecution, and what can this poor man do when he has to fight the Treasury? Remember that these proposals are not at all clear, and the moment there appears to be the least complication there is not a single lawyer who would be able to understand them without consulting his family solicitor. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he produces the Finance Act of 1909 will let us have an Act of Parliament which the ordinary layman can understand when he reads it.
  With regard to the Death Duties, it is palpable to everybody that they must, to to a great extent, discourage sale. I cannot speak for many people, but as far as I know human nature, I am prepared to say that one of the greatest spurs to a man to succeed in this life and to become more wealthy and rise to a higher social position and get on, one of the greatest inducements driving him on is the consciousness that he will be able to leave his descendants in a better position than he was himself. If, however, the State is to step in and take away a large portion of his fortune that great inducement to saving and raising himself and family is to a large extent removed. On the first night this Budget was introduced the hon. Member for the Wirral Division of Cheshire (Mr. W. H. Lever) said that he liked this Budget, and that he was pleased to know he was going to pay his fair share of taxation. That is a noble sentiment which we all re-echo, but I wish to point out that we are advancing upon a very dangerous downhill grade, because although the hon. Member for Wirral is quite pleased that he is going to pay his fair share, I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway thinks he is paving his fair share. I am afraid they will tell him that he is not paying anything like his fair share, and when he congratulates himself in this way he may be congratulating himself a little too early. I say, without the least hesitation, that an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. on the scale of Death Duties will remove one of the best inducements which influence a man to rise and get on and improve his position. These swingeing duties no doubt arise from the unfortunate fact that there are about two men born into the world who can look after themselves and their own business to three
  602
  who cannot look after themselves; and the principle upon which the Government appear to be acting at the present time is that the two men who can look after their own affairs and try to get on are to be handicapped in order to pay for the three who cannot get on. If this kind of thing is carried out to a much greater extent, instead of two persons being born into the world who can look after themselves as compared with three who cannot we shall get the proportion of one who can look after himself and four who cannot.
  It is perfectly certain that these swingeing Death Duties will drive a large amount of capital out of the country, and this will be a big blow to the chief industries of this country. The Government require a huge surplus in order to carry out their different schemes, such as employment bureaux, afforestation, and hundreds of other schemes administered by Government officials. In my opinion, if you wish to get rid of distress and unemployment in this country you had far better let individuals manage their own private affairs than trust to Government Departments to find employment and working out schemes which ought to be carried out by private individuals. The hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leif Jones), in the course of his speech, made a long calculation as to how easy it was to pay these duties, and I heard a remark made by a hon. Member below the Gangway to the effect that it was a ridiculous thing when speaking of undeveloped minerals to complain of the tax because they only paid an income tax of 1s. in the £. That shows clearly that hon. Members below the Gangway do not realise what is being paid in taxation by the wealthy people of this country. I believe the calculation which has been worked on the principle laid down by Sir Henry Primrose as to what the present Death Duties will amount to if translated into income tax is quite correct. I may point out that this calculation takes 30 years as the ordinary life, which, I think, is a very high average, and, working out the present duties to be levied as Estate Duties, any person who is in the fortunate position of being a millionaire—that is to say, of having £40,030 a year—would pay income tax at the rate of 6s. 2d. in the £. A man in the less fortunate position of having an income of £4,000 a year from a capital of £100,000 would pay income tax at the rate of 4s. 2d. in the £. I have for this purpose taken the scale of Estate Duty, and I

  603
  have also added three per cent. Legacy Duty. That may be a little high, but I do not think it is very high. I do not think anybody can deny that for a man who has got £4,000 a year an income tax of 4s. 2d. in the £, or one quarter of his income, is a very severe tax, and is far more than his fair share.
  But after all the whole argument against the increasing of the death duties and the income tax is that in the proposals before us we are not maintaining the old relationship and proportion between direct and indirect taxation. The principle upon which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have always acted has been that as far as possible there should be equality between direct and indirect taxation. I think it was a good principle to go on, because it laid down that if there was increased expenditure everybody paid something towards it in proportion to their income; and if there happened to be a saving of money and decreased national expenditure everybody got a little off their taxation, and they were all pleased that there had been a decrease. By the present proposals you are utterly doing away with any equality between direct and indirect taxation, and you are establishing the principle that one section of the community are to vote how the money is to be spent and only a small section of the community is to pay the taxes. In the case of the last Budget the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade boasted in regard to its departure from the equal proportion between direct and indirect taxation which was carried out. The right hon. Gentleman was then very pleased with himself, and he said that the Liberal Government had reached the high water mark of democratic finance. We all know what that was. The result was more people out of employment and greater distress last winter than for the last 20 years. We have gone still further on the path of democratic finance, and we have now passed the high water mark, in fact, we are experiencing a regular tidal wave, and for the hundreds who went under last year there will be thousands who will go under this year, and they will have only the Government to thank for their unfortunate position.
  Mr. F. W. VERNEY: I think there is one thing which we can all congratulate ourselves upon, and it is that the principle of the Death Duties is no longer quarrelled with, and it has now come to a mere ques-
  604
  tion of the amount. That is an immense advance from the time when Sir William Harcourt introduced his principle of the Death Duties. Then we had to fight the battle of the Liberal party on principle, but now we have only to deal with the amount. There is one distinction which it seems only fair and right to draw between agricultural property and property such as railway stock and shares, and so forth. I think that was a distinction which was hardly sufficiently acknowledged by the Attorney-General. That principle is one on which, I think, both sides of the House can agree. If you take the way in which money is spent it is quite different in one case from the other. Anybody who is acquainted with the expenditure of money on landed estates must be aware that a good land-owner returns a great amount of his money to his estate, and to those who live on it. That is not necessary when a man owns stocks and shares. He has no moral or legal duty to spend money in wages or in repairs or in the improvement of property, but those who have any acquaintance with landed property in England know that a large number of land-owners return a great amount of money, which improves the lives of those who live on their estates. That seems a great difference indeed in comparing mere personalty and realty in this country. I was told a short time ago of an estate which had a gross rental in 15 years of £62,000. In improvements alone £23,000 was spent during those 15 years, while the amounts spent in wages for outdoor work was £20,000, and the charges on the property amounted to £15,000. I should very much like to see an equality of treatment in regard to ail classes of the community. I hold no brief from landlords in particular, but nobody can deny that one of the great reasons why this country has become so prosperous in the past and why there is a growing prosperity in the country districts, is that as a whole landlords have done their duty towards their estates, although there may be instances where landlords have behaved badly and have squandered their money. In collecting the duties which have to be paid by the owners of landed estates it would be only fair to consider the amount of money spent in improvements, and not to deal with that class of property as if it were like stocks and shares. I think myself that there is one matter which has not been adequately debated, and that is the extreme hardship of quick succession. When three or four persons die in rapid

  605
  succession, and when Death Duties have to be paid, I cannot help thinking that some particular arrangement should be made by which the estate should not be overwhelmed by the duties.
  It is very difficult to draw up a clause which could be applicable in all cases. But I know some cases in which landlords have done their best by their estates. Yet, after rapid succession, there has been produced a poverty which is not anticipated, and I am sure that Sir William Harcourt, or those who supported his principle, never intended to bring about such a result. I think that is a case which might very well be provided against. It may be said that these are rare cases, but when you have rare cases which are very hard there is an extra reason for remedying it, particularly when the revenue from those cases will be very little. Surely because it is a rare case, that is a reason why the estate should not be inflicted with the burden. I should like to have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer — if he had been here—to try and provide against very hard cases of that kind, and I think this is a matter which he might take into his consideration. I can only say that, on the whole, it is perfectly fair to tax people who are wealthy in a greater proportion than those who have less of this world's wealth. A 10 per cent. duty to a man who has got a thousand a year is a heavier tax than 20 per cent. to a man who has got £20,000 a year. If that principle existed in Death Duties, there would really be no cause of complaint. I heartily agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the main principles of his Budget, because I believe they are based on justice, and that he intends to put on the shoulders of those men best able to bear the heaviest taxes for the defence of this country and the various purposes of Government. I think that principle has been generally applied in this Budget, but I hope that he will take into consideration the hard cases and the unjust cases. I, for one, hope he will do so, and I hope that he will see this Budget pursed from everything that is unfair and unjust, and I hope that we may look upon it as a great historical Budget for the defence of the country and the prosperity of the nation.
  Mr. G. D. FABER (York): I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman at any length on the question of Death Duties, but I fear that many hardships are likely to arise out of the new proposals when you come to apply them, more especially to the
  606
  land. Is it for the good of the community that such immense increases in the Death Duties and in the Legacy and Succession Duties should take place? The Member for the Appleby Division of Westmoreland says that in 1894 there was a tremendous advance in the Death Duties. Death Duties, in principle, are not objectionable. They only become objectionable in degree. When they become too high, then injustice arises. Sir William Harcourt, in introducing the Budget of 1894, made one remark that has struck me with great force. He said that under the natural law of the physical man death ends all. It was only by the arrangement of human society that the dead hand was able to dispose of property after death. It was for that reason Sir William Harcourt said, with reference to Death Duties, that society had a right to step in and claim a toll for the privilege granted. The amount of the toll is the question at issue. In 1894 Sir William Harcourt did away with a number of old duties and grouped them together under the name of Estate Duty. The Estate Duty meant this, that quite irrespective of degree of relationship, if a man left a certain sum (he State stepped in and took its share. Sir William Harcourt left untouched the old legacy and succession duties, so that under that Act there were two sets of duties—the Estate Duty on the whole corpus of the Estate, and the Legacy and Succession Duties. Let us look back for 15 years and consider the operation that has taken place, and what has been the effect of that operation. Has it done any good to the community? The Death Duties have gone on increasing rather more, and the community does not seem to have benefited by them. It is only after many years have passed that you can say Aye or No what has been the effect on the nation. Therefore I venture to think it is rather early yet to arrive at the confident conclusion that the duties imposed by the Act of 1894 not only did no harm to the community, but benefited it. Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that no harm has been done. Let me recall what the Prime Minister did when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago. What did he do with Sir William Harcourt's scale of death duties? I have already explained that Sir W. Harcourt did not touch the Legacy and Succession Duties; neither did the Prime Minister two years ago. They were left undisturbed, and when the Prime Minister altered Sir W. Harcourt's scale of Death Duties, he

  607
  touched nothing until it reached an estate of £150,000.
  I daresay hon. Members will remember what great amusement the present Prime Minister elicited in the course of his Budget speech when he said he was only going to touch the millionaire, and to begin the higher scale of duty at £150,000. I remember, too, that an hon. Member on the other side of the House, reputed to be richly endowed with this world's goods, walked out, and great laughter ensued. The walking out of the hon. Member was supposed to be connected with a remark made by the Prime Minister with regard to millionaires, and the Prime Minister himself caused much laughter when he said that he did not at any rate intend to tax living men; he only intended to tax dead ones, and he was only going to touch the scale of duties when it got to £150,000. One of his observations is well worth quoting. He said:—
  "I am satisfied, after a great deal of investigation, that we may, without injuring property, without checking the accumulation of capital, and without injustice to any human being, reconsider the scale of duties imposed in 1904. I propose to leave the scale of duties as it is, up to £160,000."
  So much for that; but now, when we look at the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and compare it with Sir W. Harcourt's scheme of 1894, as amended by the Prime Minister two years ago, there is an extraordinary difference that must become apparent to the Committee. It is not only in regard to the estate of the millionaire, but it begins with estates as low as £5,000. I should like to stop here for a moment by way of criticism and say that this is an entirely new departure. It is a blow struck not only at the millionaire, but at the middle classes in this great community. If I may be allowed I will quote a few figures to show that my criticism is justified. Under the Act of 1894 an estate between £1,000 and £10,000 only paid 3 per cent.; under this Resolution an estate between £l,0C0 and £5,000 pays 3 per cent., and one between £5,C00 and £10,000 pays 4 per cent., so that the whole scale from £5,000 upwards has increased. The small estates of the country will suffer. I agree that the large ones also suffer considerably, but the trouble is not by any means confined to them. This strikes a blow much lower in the scale; it is using a pump which has not been used before. When you come to the Legacy and
  608
  Succession Duty on the top of the Estate Duty you will find that the mischief in regard not only to large but to small estates is immensely aggravated, because under the old Legacy and Succession Duty Acts of George III.—and now I am on consanguinity—the duties to be paid show a great increase. A lineal ancestor or descendant of the testator paid 1 per cent. Legacy Duty, and that is not touched by the Resolution. A brother or sister or descendant of a brother or sister paid 3 per cent. under the old Act. Under this Resolution they are now to pay 5 per cent. Under the old Act an uncle or aunt and their descendants, and a great uncle and great aunt or their descendants paid 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively. Under the proposed Resolution they will all now pay 10 per cent. The difference when worked out proves to be immense. I will take an estate of £5,001 and show the effect of the increased Estate Duty and of the increased Legacy Duty. We will suppose that this estate passes to a first cousin. It is in money, and not in land. Under the present law the 3 per cent. Estate Duty represents £ 150, and the 5 per cent. Legacy Duty £250, giving a total of £400. Under the proposed Resolution on this same estate the Estate Duty comes to £200 at 4 per cent., and the Legacy Duty at 10 per cent. amounts to £500, so that the whole duty in respect of that estate of £5,001 amounts to £700, instead of £400 under the present system. It is almost double; but if it happens that the estate is in land to be put into settlement you have to add the Settlement Duty, which used to be 1 per cent., and now is 2 per cent., so that if it be a case of land and not of money the difference would be even greater than before. So much for the £5,000 estate. Now we will take one higher up in the scale, and a not uncommon one—an estate, say, of £40,000 which is left to the first cousin again, a near relation in blood. Here I will take it in land—settled. Under the present law £40,000 worth of land would pay 4½ per cent. Estate Duty £1,800 and 5 per cent. Legacy Duty £2,000. There will also be 1 per cent. Succession Duty, £400, giving a total of £4,200. Under the Resolution now before the House the Estate Duty at 7 per cent. will produce £2,800, the Legacy Duty at 10 per cent. £4,000, and the Settlement Duty at 2 per cent. £800, making a total of £7,600 in duties upon a £40,000 landed estate, as against the old duty of £4,200—

  609
  again something like twice, or almost twice, what it is at present. I do not want the Committee to go away at this early stage of our discussion with the idea that this is anything but a most drastic change.
  I should like to apply a general criticism as to the effect of the Act on the various units that go to make up the community. The £5,000 estate is to pay duties which are nearly double. I know it has never been a popular thing in this House to make a cry in regard to the grievances of the millionaire, but I venture to suggest that, after all, he plays an important part in our social life, because, after all, these duties affect investments of his which must directly or indirectly employ labour. The millionaire is the money or honey bee of the hive. I gravely doubt the wisdom from the point of view of the community of taking such great chunks out of the fortunes of capitalists, and when you come to apply the same principle to a lower scale—to people with small holdings of property—the effect may be even more prejudicial, because when the smaller capitalist shuffles off this mortal coil and his successor enters into the business and is called upon to pay these heavy duties the result will probably be that you will injure not only him but the labour he employs. It is a difficult question, I confess, and I do not want in any way to approach it from the point of view of the capitalist only. We want to see what is best for the community. We have now a high income tax, a foundation tax of 1s. 2d. in the £, to which it is proposed to add a super-tax of 6d., in addition to this drastic alteration in Estate and Legacy Duties. We must not forget this fact. When Sir William Harcourt passed his Act in 1894 the income tax only stood at 8d., and when the present. Prime Minister altered the Death Duties two years ago the foundation income tax was only 1s. To-day the income tax is much higher. We must look at the matter as a whole. You are not only aiming a single-barrelled gun at the capital of this country, as Sir William Harcourt did in 1894, but, in the present Budget, you are using a six-chambered revolver, and you are firing shot after shot at the, monetary interests of this country. You may think that you can do it without fear, and without wishing to do any damage, but the dividing line will have to be drawn some day or other. It is a great experiment, to go on turning on the tap, expecting the flow always to remain the same, and that no harm will be done to the community, but the time must come—
  610
  if the whole of our system is not going to degenerate into a new state, governed by Socialistic principles—when the line must be drawn against those principles, which I believe to be profoundly antagonistic to those of many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. Unless you are going to fall into those dangerous ways, before long—not before long, but now—the time will come, and, indeed, you should consider whether the time has not come, to cry "Halt" as regards the attacks which are made, not in one but in half a dozen forms, upon the capital of this country, which, after all, lies at the root of the labour of this country and of our prosperity as a community.
  Mr. C. J. O'DONNELL: I regret extremely that for the first time since these Resolutions were introduced I have to declare myself against them, and I do so with great reluctance, because I think a vast part of the Budget is just. But the increase of this Resolution, and the heavy taxation which is proposed by the previous Resolution, coming upon the top of an increase only two years ago, I feel to be radically unjust. Death Duties there must be; they are recognised as part of the machinery of finance in this country, but they have unfortunately in them a degree of injustice, certainly of inequity. They are uncertain in their incidence. They may fall half a dozen times in a quarter of a century. They have fallen on large estates three times in ten years, within my own knowledge, and they have fallen on another large estate twice within one year. Taxation of this description, therefore, ought to be put on with precaution, and with just regard to the other conditions, by which it is enacted. Therefore, I feel very strongly that it is very unwise and gives a certain amount of support to, I think, the unjust idea abroad that this Government is a Socialistic Government. There is no question that the contributions that are being demanded from capital in this Budget are extremely heavy, and I think the Government would have been very much wiser if it had postponed even for a year, the infliction of three heavy taxes of property in one year. There is also another disadvantage, which has been so often referred to that I need not refer to it again, except to say that the Death Duties are beyond all question a diminution of capital. It is perfectly right that capital should have to pay its share, but it should pay its share in the form of profits on capital. I think it is

  611
  a generally recognised principle that the expenses of any one year should come out of the income of that year, and though I am afraid that very few Liberals will follow me into the other Lobby I believe it is the conviction of the majority of men on this aide of the House that there has been an unwise attack upon capital. I am glad that I had this opportunity of making this statement, for I do not wish to give a silent vote, but before concluding I wish to draw attention to the fact that this taxation is not only almost cruel in the present year, but that it is progressive. In the statement issued a few days ago we had figures showing what would be the result of these taxes during the next three years. I find that the increase of Estate Duty or Death Duty will next year, that is the year with which we are dealing, be 2½ millions, but in two years time it will be 4½ millions. Similarly having regard to the Succession Duties, although it seems nothing is expected from this year, the amount to be obtained within two years is as much as 2 millions. I am not prepared to help any party in this country to bleed capital quite so severely.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I should like to endorse what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro Ferguson) as to the effect of this Resolution upon sylviculture. This Resolution means absolute destruction to any kind of forestry. It was difficult enough to induce land-owners to take an interest in forestry before, even when under the old system you got a fairly quick return, but the modern scientific forestry depends upon rotation and takes a very long time to develop—40 years is the very quickest time for growing a tree, and agriculturists can hardly hope to see the result of their expenditure. Therefore it is absolutely impossible to get men to spend money upon an enterprise when they are not likely to see the result of that expenditure, and when the trees they plant will be cut down by their sons to pay Death Duties, As it is, the existing Death Duties have a most deplorable result on forestry, and this Resolution will complete the destruction of it. I also wish to put the effect of a Resolution like this upon old-fashioned proprietory businesses—family businesses—the business which a man makes himself and wishes to leave to his son, or it may be his nephew. It may be a manufacturing business with immovable assets, and of which the fixed assets, at all events,
  612
  represent a very large proportion of the whole. Let us take the case of a man dying and leaving £150,000 worth of business assets in the form of land, buildings, plant, and the rest. If Succession Duty be taken out of account, £15,000 is payable on his death in Estate Duty alone. That is an enormous impost upon a business like that, and if that is renewed within a short period it is perfectly crushing, especially when, as very often happens, the business is one which is only just able to hold its head above water. When new capital has to be found, and very likely the old capital plant has to be scrapped, it will mean the absolute destruction of the old family business. Of course, you may say a man could convert it into a Limited Liability Company, but, in the first place, I do not think it is very desirable that new issues should be freely encouraged, and, in the second place, I regard the creation of Limited Liability Companies in the case of old family businesses as an almost unmitigated evil. The good relations which in some places still exist between all parties on the land have been referred to, and in the case of family businesses that also exists, but where you have the conversion and amalgamation of businesses it is destructive to social well-being in these cases. These enormous amalgamations of companies and the directors controlling them cannot possibly be in touch with those employed. I know, for instance, an hon. Member of this House who is the chairman of one or two companies and a director of many more. He cannot be brought into touch with the working people. The directors may do their very best but they are absolutely out of touch with the workers. I think that fact has contributed a great deal to the success of hon. Members below the Gangway in their propaganda, and that the effect of these large amalgamations has tended to alienate the employers of labour from their own people. I should, therefore, deprecate any legislation which should encourage such amalgamations, as I fear a Resolution of this kind will. I would like to put this question to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it the policy of the Government to permanently reduce private capital and to take off large slices of it, which, without undue exertions, can never be replaced? It was formerly an object of legitimate ambition for a man to allow his son to start in life in as good a position as he is himself, but what kind of sacrifices will these proposals entail upon people of that sort? Take a man

  613
  with £150,000, producing £6,000 a year. On the death of a man with this fortune, taking account of the Estate Duty alone, and taking it on what he leaves to his son and putting all questions of consanguinity out of sight, the estate pays £15,000, and to get back this sum in 30 years, which is an average calculation, involves a charge of 2s. 6d. in the pound. This man, therefore, pays, apart from the super-tax and other incidental duties, 3s. 8d. in the pound all through his life in order to die as well off as his father, but if, beyond that, he wants his son to begin life as rich as he himself, he must save another £15,000, and that will involve another £320 a year, equivalent to more than another 1s. Income Tax. Therefore, if the third generation is to be put in the same position as the first, all through the time of the second generation the unhappy man will have to pay some 4s. 10d. in the pound Income Tax on the original £6,000. If the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Philip Snowden) and his friends are not satisfied with that, they are very unreasonable people indeed. This Resolution, moreover, may have a disastrous effect upon the habits of many people in this country. Who is going to make his plans far ahead, with legislation of this kind being brought forward? I fear that men, so far from liking to save for their children, will give them what they can afford during their lifetime and allow them to struggle. They will take no obligation upon themselves. They will live in hired houses and will not attach themselves to any particular place, more than they can help to do so. That will be the luxury of the very rich, and altogether there will be an enormous destruction, or, at the best, dislocation of the traditions and amenities of old established duties and responsibilities, and an entire change for the worse in the social fabric from the bottom to the top.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: We have still to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer reply upon the general case made last night and to-night, and we have to get through the Division on these Resolutions in time to enable the business which still remains to be discussed at this stage to be finished to-night. I therefore feel I owe no apology to the Committee for rising now, although I very greatly regret that I am forced into doing so before some Gentlemen on both sides of the House who desire to address the Committee. So far the only speech we have had from the Government Bench was the speech de-
  614
  livered last night by the Attorney-General. He replied to a very masterly address by my hon. Friend the Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyman), and I think it will be admitted that we got very little enlightenment from the Attorney-General excepting perhaps on the highly technical questions which will have to be discussed when the Bill comes out, and which perhaps cannot be discussed to great advantage before it, namely, as to the number of times in which in certain circumstances Death Duties have to be paid in the course of one settlement.
  I propose, however, to deal with larger aspects of the question. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not imitate the tactics of his learned Friend, for the Attorney-General seems to think that he had said all that was necessary upon the general case when he made two observations. The first was that all taxation was bad, and, therefore, for the Opposition to point out that a particular tax was bad was really adding nothing to the stock of knowledge which everyone possesses before they begin to discuss the Budget. Of course all taxes are bad. But there are degrees of demerit as between different kinds of taxes, a thing which did not seem to have occurred to the Attorney-General at all. He seemed really to hold the view that inasmuch as every form of taxation took money from the country which would otherwise belong to the individual all forms of taxation were equally good or equally bad, whichever way you like to look at it, The sacrifice which this country has to make is equivalent to £164,000,000 in a year, and if you extract that amount of money, and extract it you must, from the taxpayer it does not much matter how you get it. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not take that simple view of finance. His second point was that those who desire expenditure for certain great objects were excluded for that very reason from criticising any particular form in which the money necessary for that expenditure was going to be raised—my hon. Friends behind me certainly said you want "Dreadnoughts" and an increase of the Navy—and that really it is very ungracious, almost inconsistent, of those who insist on seeing increased national expenditure for any great national object to quarrel with the Government over any suggestion which has been made for meeting those needs. Again I must say I do not think that is a line of argument which really helps us to deal with the difficulties of taxation. I do not in the least deny the

  615
  general proposition—indeed, I think I have often had to insist upon it—that while this House is perfectly delighted to force expenditure on the Government, they always grumble when they are asked to pay the Bill, and it is an observation which is extremely important and relevant to certain issues. But when we are met together to discuss in a business spirit the particular taxes proposed by the Government, that broad consideration, whatever its importance may be, and I do not underrate its importance, really is not relevant to the merits or demerits of any particular form of taxation.
  I am perfectly ready to grant that the Death Duties have one merit which so far we have never been able to obtain from any other form of taxation in so simple a manner. Those who think that graduation may be a just and necessary method of obtaining part of the resources of the country must all admit that no one has succeeded in framing a satisfactory graduation for the Income Tax. The Government do not claim that they have done that, and the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Chiozza Money) cannot be wholly satisfied with the schemes of graduation which he from time to time has put before us. Graduation, at all events, is much more easily and simply applied to taxation by Death Duties than to taxation by the Income Tax, and so far it has one great advantage which no other form of direct taxation really has. But everyone must admit, and I think they must admit with increasing anxiety, that the principle of graduation carries with it real dangers. It is impossible, I think, to deny that you ought to have graduation, but who can doubt that the absolute impossibility of laying down a fixed point at which graduation ceases to be right and becomes wrong, ceases to be just and becomes oppressive, is so great, the facility of taxing the very few who are also the very rich is so great and the temptation to do so is so strong, that every Chancellor of the Exchequer who deals either with the Death Duties or with any form of graduated Income Tax is under a great temptation to do that which is not merely unjust but oppressive to the individual, but which may carry in its train what are not less real and not less formidable evils because they are somewhat remote. I agree you do not see in one year or in five or perhaps in ten the effect of a rash attack upon particular sized properties taxed beyond what either equity or sound prudence would suggest. But
  616
  because the evils are deferred, because they are in some respects remote, because their immediate results touch but an almost infinitesimal section of the community, do not let us believe that these remote consequences can be avoided. I constantly hear this Budget called by its admirers a democratic Budget. Let us be careful that we do not begin to associate democracy with robbery, an association which has never been brought about in any modern civilised State, which is certainly not true of the great democratic community across the Atlantic, which has never been true in this country, and which I hope is not going to be true, but which I frankly say seems to me a nearer danger after this Budget than it has ever seemed to me before. Remember that in two years the present Government has increased on very large fortunes the amount of taxation by no less than 75 per cent. Sir William Harcourt I believe was of opinion that the scale he had introduced was not merely a scale suggested by the temporary necessities and expedients and financial needs of the moment, but was a scale based upon an equitable view of the situation, based upon the degree in which you really ought to have differential taxation.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): How does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the increase of 75 per cent.?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find, if he looks at the great fortunes at the top of the scale, that the general effect of the present Prime-Minister's addition and of his own addition amount to no less than 75 per cent. in two years. The people at the top of the scale are very few. I have never seen that they carry any great political influence, but, at all events, numerically, they are extremely few, and to put this enormous burden upon them in two years, without laying down any broad principle on which you are going, is perilous. I do not wish to put it more strongly, and the Government should be careful lest they are not leading us into paths at the end of which very serious social dangers will attack the credit and the commerce of this country. I admit the merit of graduation, but I respectfully warn the Government and the Committee against its dangers.
  Now let us come in rather closer detail to the actual incidence of the tax from the point of view of the individuals first, and" then from the point of view of the community. The first is the least and the second

  617
  the most important of these two classes of considerations. As regards individuals, I cannot help thinking it is very unequal as between individuals of equal wealth. Given two individuals, each owning property which, at death, would be valued at the same sum, I think you will find the incidence is really not the same. We had a very interesting speech in, I regret to say, a very empty House, from the hon. Member for Westmoreland (Mr. Leaf Jones), and he attempted, in a very sympathetic manner—he evidently desired to be fair—to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) last night. He said, in the first place, that the idea that land ought only to be considered as having an income-bearing value of half its gross value was much too low an estimate. I suspect, in some cases, it is much too low, and in others it is too high. It depends largely on the character of the property, on the amount of the inevitable outgoings, upon whether there are small holdings or large holdings, whether the bill for repairs is big or small, on endless considerations on which it is very difficult to lay down an absolute rule. But that is not the point I am going to make against the hon. Gentleman. He said we suffer in England and Scotland now—he did not refer to Ireland—from the over-value of land. He said an estate which was worth £100,000 in the market really only brought in £2,000 a year to its owner—in fact he valued land on a 2 per cent. basis—and that was a great public misfortune, because only the very rich could own the land as a luxury if they had to accept so small an interest on their outlay.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I accepted the 2 per cent. as given by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs. I think it is too low an estimate, but I took it for the purpose of argument.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Again, I do not wish to quarrel over fractions, and I think if the hon. Gentleman will consider my point, he will see the force of the observations I am going to make. He seems to talk as if anybody with an estate on which the Government valuers, or perhaps his own valuers, put the amount at £100,000, would go and sell a tenth of that in the market just as if he had £100,000 in L. and N.W. Railway stock, and his argument was with regard to value that that is the market value of the land. It is not contended that it is not the fair market value of the railway stock, but there is no
  618
  equality in the two things. There is a great deal of misconception in this House about market value. I have heard that phrase abused in regard to more than one subject. I have heard it greatly abused in regard to the wages of labour. That is not the market value which is a forced value. A value which is not constant; but is a forced value, is difficult to ascertain. I think I myself, if I had to sell land, would be delighted to sell it at the figure which the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I do not believe I could. If I have London and North-Western Railway stock I know I can sell, and I know exactly what I can sell it for. I think everybody who is acquainted with the economic conditions I am dealing with will admit that there are a great many things which have a market value in this sense, that if the owner can wait for an appropriate purchaser he then will get Such and such a value for his picture, or whatever it may be, or for some valuable commodity which he has in his possession. But if you have two men, one of whom can sell without extra loss any fraction of his property, whatever it may be, and another man who perhaps cannot sell his property at all, or who perhaps has to wait an indefinite number of years for a buyer, who cannot sell it by fractions, and who can only either sell it in a lump or large portions of it together—to treat these two men as in an identical situation when you are going to take, not part of their income, but part of their capital, is absurd. I do not think it can be seriously defended. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman, if he will think over the position, will see that I am right. There is an attempt here to meet the case by permitting payment in the case of land to be spread over some years, but that attempt does not bring the two kinds of property to anything like par.
  There is another point I wish to bring out, and in regard to which I hope the House will not think that I desire to lay too much stress, but it is one which I do not think we ought to leave wholly out of account. The Death Duties make no distinction at all between private property which produces income and private property which does not produce income. The result is that directly you make the Death Duties very high there is a tremendous temptation to owners of property to turn their property, sometimes at great sentimental loss, from the non-income bearing into income-bearing kind. Take the case of

  619
  pictures and furniture, referred to last night, first by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), and afterwards by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General asked, I think with great plausibility, Do you mean to say that if a man has either inherited or invested a large sum of money in valuable, pictures and furniture his heirs are going to get off when he dies? I see the force of that argument, but observe the result of treating the non-income-bearing property exactly as income-bearing property. Of course, there is a tremendous temptation to sell that which does not bear income and to turn it into that which a man can use for his own enjoyment. You will discourage everything in the way of owning works of art and some of the higher forms of property by this process. You will turn people from that form of expenditure—without saying anything invidious—to other forms of expenditure which we may regard as somewhat lower. A man may spend money on mere display or mere self-indulgence, or he may buy a picture, but if he is going to pay not only a tax upon the non-income-bearing expenditure, but also pay Death Duties, he will consider whether he should buy works of art. I do think there is here great occasion of hardship as between individuals equally wealthy, between a man who has got a very large income from securities, which he does nothing to accumulate, and the man who has inherited and finds himself the possessor of a non-income-bearing property, on which a large sum for duty has to be paid. I do not think that the man who has that property ought to get off, and yet we must all feel that there is a tendency in this kind of taxation to divert expenditure into channels some of which are not the best, or the highest, or, on the whole, for the best future interests of the country. I should be sorry to see the time when nobody would afford or could afford to possess any property except that which brought him in an annual income, and when the possessors would be persons more happily situated like foreign millionaires, to whom would be gradually transferred possessions which are not merely the possessions of individuals, but possessions from which the country whole derives no little enjoyment.
  I now turn to what is a less disputable point, and I think, perhaps, a more important point. It is the effect of this par-
  620
  ticular kind of legislation upon the economic position of the country. In the first place it surely is an obvious evil of any tax that it should be spasmodic in its nature, and the higher you put taxation which is spasmodic the more violent you make these oscillations. You can state the Death Duties in terms of income tax, and for certain purposes that is a very illuminating way. I wish they were always treated by those who have to pay them as if they were income tax. It would be a very good thing if they were; but they are not, and if you make the Death Duties very high, it is almost impossible that they should be. I believe that the amount of taxation you are going to get out of fortunes at the higher end of the scale will be considerable. Cases might be easily stated in which they will be 6s. or 7s. in the £. That is enormous. People probably will not pay 6s. or 7s. in the pound. They will not spread it over so as to treat it as income tax. They will treat it in the form which I took by a hesitating observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be the way it ought to be treated. They will treat it as if it were intended to take a slice out of the property. If you look at it from that point of view, who can deny that this spasmodic form of taxation is not only occasionally very harsh to individuals, but must be extremely damaging to industry. Observe, it is perfectly arbitrary as regards the time at which it falls. You may say it is not arbitrary as regards the individual who has to pay when he comes into possession of the property. Sir William Harcourt said that a man who came into a large fortune really ought not to grumble if that event was clouded by the fact that he had to pay duty into the Exchequer. It is absolutely arbitrary as regards business. Whether a man is the owner of an estate which requires annual expenditure for upkeep, new buildings, and the rest, or whether he may be the possessor of a manufacturing business, or a trader in some other shape, this tax comes upon the business at an arbitrary moment, and it may be a very bad moment for the business. I do not think that in this Debate we have heard enough of the effects upon credit which this large slice, taken suddenly and arbitrarily as regards the moment, will have upon credit. We have heard a great deal, not too much, about the effect upon land, and I will say something upon that before I sit down, but we have heard little about the effect upon business, and yet surely that is a most im-

  621
  portant point. You take 15 per cent. from a large business, and from large fortunes you are going to take much more. You take that suddenly from the capital of the business. That is a very serious matter. It must affect the carrying on of the business. It must diminish the resources. It must make it more difficult to get the necessary accommodation from bankers and others who are prepared to lend. It must diminish the power of extending business if trade is improving, and it must diminish the power of carrying on business at a relative loss if trade is bad. It must make the difference in many cases as to turning off workmen or keeping them on. It must have effects in all the businesses referred to by my hon. Friend in the speech he has just made. It must affect them in a very serious and adverse manner. I quite agree that when you come to huge corporations, like the London and Northwestern Railway, or some of the great businesses in the country, the effect is negligible, but it is not negligible in the case of the smaller businesses and smaller fortunes. The tide is running so strongly at this moment in favour of amalgamating businesses, and of increasing the size of corporations which manage businesses, that there is, quite apart from the vexed question of trusts and monopolies and those allied problems, a genuine and legitimate economic tendency in the direction of building up large concerns, and yet there is so great an advantage in retaining, as far as you can, the small businesses. And I greatly regret that we should at this time do anything by our legislation which would make the maintenance of the small businesses more difficult.
  Analogous to this case of the small business is the case of the land-owner of moderate size. As the House knows landowners are not merely possessors of the soil, they are the capitalists who equip the soil and are responsible for the permanent improvement of the soil. I was rather surprised at an observation made by the hon. Member for Westmoreland in the speech to which I have already referred, in which he looked back as if to some distant Garden of Eden to a period some centuries ago, when, as he said, the stock on the land was more valuable than the fee simple of property. It may have been in days when the farm was not equipped on modern methods at a cost which is now absolutely necessary to carry on agriculture under modern conditions; but nowadays I believe there are innumerable
  622
  examples in which the equipment of the farm and the stock on the farm are greater than the value of the land. The capitalist in this case, under our existing system, is the landlord. He provides all the permanent equipment. The hon. Gentleman desires to see properties made smaller and a larger number of owners in this country. I agree with him. I wish he had said so with more emphasis when we were discussing the Small Holdings Bill. I welcome his statement, even though it seems to be somewhat belated. But I do not believe that anything you do to hamper the existing land-owner is going to lead to the state of things which both the hon. Gentleman and I desire. The state of things it is going to lead to is not a different distribution of land, but an inferior management of the land under its existing distribution. Instead of having this particular class of capitalists engaged in agriculture, instead of having him resident in the place where his business is carried on, in the place where he is known, under the relation which happily exists almost all over the country between the owner and occupier and workmen, you would have him an absentee, letting the amenities of his estate to some wealthy people, British or foreign, and working the estate otherwise as economically as he can, and sometimes, through no fault of his own, too economically for the real success of the occupation in which he is engaged. If you could do what the hon. Gentleman seems to suppose, if you could cut off two or three fields a year and sell them for 28 years' purchase of the gross rent, which I think is the value put on it here, or 30 years' purchase of the gross rent, I agree in thinking that that system might work. But it is not practicable; it is not possible; it is not business; it is not what has been done; and it is not what can be done.
  I agree with my hon. Friend who has spoken behind me, and with some Gentlemen on the other side of the House, that you are doing a real damage to this particular class of moderate-sized industries connected with land just as you are doing damage to other moderate-sized industries not connected with land at all. They are both on the same footing. Both of them in my opinion will really suffer by this particular apportionment method of mulcting them at intervals with more than the business can afford to pay when the manager of the business happens to die. This is the last observation with which I will trouble the House. Observe the

  623
  result of this spasmodic taxation. It is to inflict injuries not merely on particular businesses, agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial, but to inflict injuries on particular localities. The system of taxation of the ordinary type spreads the sacrifice year by year, and there are no sharp shocks to the particular business or the particular trade. That is not the case when you extract from a business a given sum of money at a moment. My last argument applies both to businesses other than land and to land. If you suddenly deprive a landed business close to a small rural town or village of the resources which enable the owner to live in the place to keep his customers and keep his employment you will inflict an injury which is much greater than the mere money value, because it is all concentrated on a given spot. If a given employer of labour has to turn off his workmen at a particular moment, if he has to cease the habitual custom which he has given to tradesmen at a particular instant, you are doing far more injury by that taxation than if you could spread it over a larger period of time and a larger area in space. You do neither one nor the other. Undoubtedly the result of the Death Duties, even at the existing level, has been that you have inflicted great hardship on particular localities at a particular time, which a different and more continuous method of raising the same sum would altogether have avoided. These are evils, like all the other evils of taxation, which increase with the increase in the tax.
  There is an observation which I think will have to be made with regard to other parts of the Budget, but it is an observation which I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to bear more carefully in mind than he has done. You will never get a particular import on a particular trade—I do not care on what basis it is made—perfectly fair. Absolute theoretical fairness is unobtainable; but every augmentation of a particular tax increases its hardships in a greater ratio than the money it brings in magnifies your tax, and that which was tolerable becomes intolerable; and some of the impositions which everybody was prepared to condone because they were small, become so heavy—when increased—that, at last, people will not bear them or at least will not bear them without a sense of burden and of burning injustice. Then there is also an evil which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  624
  will not admit, namely, that it would produce a loss to the revenue. I think he is wrong. I think he will find it will. But, whether the impost produces a loss to the revenue or not, it is a very great social evil, and I must honestly say we find the taxes which the right hon. Gentleman is now putting on the real profit amounts, on the higher portions of the scale, to an income tax of one-third—it is not so much, I admit, on the lower scale—but when you have an annual appropriation by the State of one-third of the whole property, in addition, of course, to all the other rates and taxes which are paid under other heads, I think the Government must feel that they are driving this principle of graduated Death Duty to a point which is not merely hard but unjust to certain classes, and really dangerous to the future accumulation of capital and the desire, a legitimate and most wholesome desire which men have, of leaving their children at least as well off as themselves, and that you will do something to prevent this country being what, happily, it has long been, and still is, a country which has the greatest financial resources with which to deal with not only the commerce of these small islands but the whole commerce of the world.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In the persuasive speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken there is a great deal with which I agree. I am not sure I would not say that I accept all his general propositions. For instance, I quite admit the force of the last general principle which he laid down that all taxation must involve anomalies. It is quite impossible to have a fair and equal imposition. Whatever the tax is, it would hit some men much harder than another, and let another man off much lighter than he deserves to be let off. That, I think, is inevitable in every tax that has ever been invented. Any man who is acquainted in the slightest degree with the working principle of the income tax knows that perfectly well. In many cases a man is not really hit upon the actual profit which he makes. I also accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the more you increase a tax the greater will the anomaly be. You accentuate it. I rather think I said so when I made my Budget speech. For that reason I have always listened with the greatest care to all the criticisms which have come from experienced Members of this House as to the principles about agricultural land when they refer to the method of assess-

  625
  ment and valuation, and deduction which ought to be made. I have always thought there was great force in them, certainly very great force when they come to deal with the income tax. I have given a great deal of looking into this matter even before this. I have admitted as far as income tax is concerned that on the whole the method of taxing the owner of agricultural land is unfair to the good landlord, whereas on the other hand I think it gives advantages to the bad landlord that he does not deserve, because the deductions are made from the good and bad landlord, though in the case of the bad landlord he does not spend the money, whereas in the case of the good landlord he spends a great deal more and does not get the benefit. All that I have admitted; therefore I mean it is purely a case of redressing anomalies. For my part, speaking here after careful consideration with my colleague, in any case of anomaly and unfairness, he will not find the Government deaf to an appeal in any case of that kind. I will leave that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech without further observation. I heartily agree with the observation made at the beginning of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be real danger if any Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say to himself: "The poor are many, the rich are few; let us take the few because they have only a certain number of votes." I agree that it would be a serious danger. I think it would be disastrous if any Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately set himself to choose the smallest number purely because they were powerless. But, as a matter of fact, I claim—I do not argue it now—that our financial proposals are fairly distributed between all classes, and no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that if there is any electoral weakness about the Budget it is not that it is a tax upon the rich, but that it is a tax deliberately chosen in order to try and distribute the burdens fairly over all classes—over our own supporters as well as the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. These burdens are the real reason, electorally, of the weakness of the Budget. We have not been guilty—I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman has quite charged me with that—of having deliberately chosen the rich and let the poor off—I do not quite agree that the rich are powerless. The rich are quite as powerful now as ever they were; indeed, they are more powerful now than probably ever they were. They have got the Press
  626
  at their command in a way they never had it before, and they are working it, not by appeals to the millions of the people who read their papers to protect the rich, but by appeals to them to protect their own tobacco, their own whisky, and their own beer. The rich are not so powerless as the right hon. Gentleman imagines. Let there be no delusion on the point. I do not think any Government will attack the rich; I do not think there is any fear of that. The rich will be powerful to the end of time. They have got command of the machinery, they have got political power, they command political organisation, and therefore I do not think there need be any fear that the rich will be gratuitously attacked by any Government that wishes immunity for itself.
  I should like to take another observation of the right hon. Gentleman's. We have no reason to complain of the general tendency of criticism. I think it has been pretty fair and very temperate; I think a good deal of it is exceedingly useful, and it may be useful in mitigating what may appear at the present moment, to be the hardships of the existing system, although the criticisms are really not directed to my proposals, but rather to the machinery which has been existing years before I had anything whatever to do with it. In future arrangements no Chancellor of the Exchequer can possibly forecast or foresee the contingencies that will arise in working out any proposal he may submit, and it is only experience that can point out where his proposals break down and where the system ought to be eased. One complaint I am inclined to make, and that is that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen have rather chosen extreme cases, and they proceed with them as if they were really fair and normal samples of the kind of cases which would arise under the proposal which I am putting before the House. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston talked about 25 per cent. on a £100,000 estate. Under no conditions could a charge of 25 per cent. be made. The only case in which you could run up to 25 per cent. is not in the ordinary normal case, but in those cases where either a stranger in blood or a person of remote kinship inherits an estate, and which is, therefore, in the nature of an actual windfall. Really, the man who inherits in those circumstances, who is not a lineal descendant—I mean a son or grandson—is not the man I think who ought to complain very much if the State does take a slice from him. There are

  627
  very few Members of this House who would complain if they had such an opportunity of inheriting. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated his suggestion put in the course of the Debate that my proposals amounted to a 6s. 5d. income tax. I cannot make out where he can get that figure, even if he picked out an extreme case. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee how very unfair it is to take that sort of case as a working sample of my proposals. What will be the total Estate Duty even when this increased scale is enforced? It will be about £25,000,000. What is the total income tax at 'the present moment'? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said it averaged 9½ d. in the pound, and that would produce £33,000,000. A 6s. 5d. scale would produce—I cannot work out the figures—somewhere about, I think, £160,000,000. I simply point out that fact in order to show that to take a case of the kind which is put forward is not really a fair criticism of my Budget proposal. ["That is one case."] I agree with the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), and that is the very point I am emphasising. As I said, this 6s. 5d. case is not a fair sample to take of the working of my Budget. On the contrary, the tax of 9½ d. gives only £33,000,000, and £25,000,000 would represent a 6d. or 7d. income tax.
  Most of the complaints up to the present time have been as to the working of this scale on agricultural land. I would point out to the Committee that agricultural land, after all, is a very small proportion of the total property which passes at death and which contributes to the Estate Duty. The total number of estates that pass in the course of the year is from £150,000,000 to £300,000,000, while agricultural property simply represents £7,000,000. Therefore, the Committee must not imagine, because agricultural property has bulked largely in this Debate, that the main portion of the burden falls on agricultural property. On the. contrary, the proportion of agricultural property is, comparatively speaking, very small. What does it contribute? It contributes in the course of the year something like £1,250,000 to Estate Duty out of the total of £17,000,000 or £18,000,000. Since the Estate Duty was imposed £2,000,000 has been taken off for burdens on agricultural land out of the proceeds of the Death Duties, so that on the whole agricultural land has done very well by the
  628
  Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is very difficult for the owner of agricultural land to realise part of his estate so as to enable him to pay the Death Duties. I can give him a fact which I think is a complete answer. The owners of agricultural estates are given, I think, eight years to pay the Death Duty. They can spread the instalments over eight years. Will it be believed that in the vast majority of cases they prefer to pay down? What is the interest? It is 3 per cent.—only 3 per cent.—so that agricultural land, if it had found it so difficult, would not have preferred to pay down rather than pay even the 3 per cent. That is the real answer to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. The difficulty is not so great. We have heard a good deal about the Death Duties being a discouragement to thrift. There is another side to the question. The Death Duties have encouraged thrift. Why? Every agricultural owner knows perfectly well that when the property passes he has a desire to keep the estate intact, and that is a view of the organisation of rural life which I do not criticise, and for which there is a good deal to be said. The agricultural owner wishes to leave the estate intact. I have nothing to do with that, or rather I should say the duties have nothing to do with that. What do they do 2 They either insure or set aside a certain sum, so that at death there may be money to meet these charges, and many men who have got property really make arrangements so that there shall be a certain part of the property which shall be available for the payment of the Death Duty. Now that is what I really call encouraging rather than discouraging thrift. It has undoubtedly been the effect in a good many cases.
  The insurance is not so very heavy. There was a very able article in the "Daily Telegraph" a week or a fortnight ago pointing out what a very small sum was necessary in order to enable you to insure against Death Duty. It was written from the point of view of insurance I must say, and not from the point of view of criticising the Death Duties. That is one of the difficulties we have got to face. In one part of a paper we find an article pointing out the evil effects of the Budget, and then another article in the same paper saying they never had such a good time in the City. There is an article one day saying the Budget is going to crush the agricultural interest, and then another article written by an insurance expert showing how you can

  629
  with the smallest possible premium provide against my Death Duties.
  There is one thing that struck me in the course of this Debate. I was in the House in 1894, and there is a strange familiarity in all the arguments I have heard and all the profession of red ruin now and then. There were the same denunciations of the proposal at that time, and really I felt very despondent in listening to them now, and when I thought how very limited must be the source of political vituperation. In one of the speeches of the Debate of 1894 dealing with the scheme of Sir William Harcourt was the statement that that proposal was very ill-considered and hasty, the only difference being that the denunciation was after the Bill, and not, as is the case now, before the Bill has ever been seen by anyone who criticised it. I was reading in that Debate that it would spread desolation in the villages, and that country houses would be emptied. You might have imagined in reading the descriptions that you were reading the description of the effect of a German invasion. There were other arguments also very familiar. It was said that the increase of staff would be so enormous that nothing would be got out of the tax, and we had the familiar argument that Holland Park would be cut into building ground. The defence of Holland Park has now been transferred to that division of the Territorial forces which is attacking land values. We have not had either the increase of staff or Holland Park in this Debate, because they have both been transferred to the Land Value Department. The revenue was to be so uncertain that you could not depend on it, and there was one very ingenious argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) showing that if you wanted a torpedo boat you would have to wait until some person died before you could get it, and if he did not die you could not pay for the torpedo boat.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in another very ingenious argument, as all his arguments are, spoke about a great Australian fortune with £250,000 in Australia and £5,000 here. The happy possessor of the fortune lived here, and before he got the £250,000 in Australia he would have to take probate out here, and before he got probate he would have to pay the whole of the £5,000 that was in this country. Therefore he would be unable to get to Australia. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on this pathetic case. He pointed out that the man would have to send the probate
  630
  to Australia; there might be difficulties which might take months, and in the meantime the man would be starving, and before it arrived he might be dead of starvation. There came the last and the most crushing argument when he said that the difficulties of administering at his death would be so great that you could not get it administered at all. He said he did not know how this difficulty would be got over, and so he went and consulted a solicitor—I think the best thing that he could have done. The solicitor gave him very good advice, as I would expect. The solicitor said: "There will be no difficulty, because after all the creditors will administer the estate," and the right hon. Gentleman said: "Supposing there are no creditors?" "Well, then," the solicitor said, "there will be the undertaker's charges." He wound up a very eloquent criticism of the Budget by saying:—
  "I do think it is a serious consequence of the Budget if we are not only going to be buried by the undertaker, but if when we die our estates are going to he managed by the undertaker."
  I was rather interested to find how this was received, and I found to my amazement that all those terrible consequences were received with "Loud Opposition cheers" at the time. Well, all those difficulties have vanished, the Australian fortune has been recovered, and I have no doubt spent, and the undertaker, at any rate in this Debate, has been buried. Holland Park is still ready to be cut up, but only for land values, and then we have got the same spectacle as to the squire in the course of this Debate. All I say about it is this, that what happened then shows the danger of exaggerating the possible consequences of taxes of this kind. That is the only reason why I am referring to it. Any man who has in his mind any lingering doubt, or any apprehension as to what will happen, all he has got to do is to read those Debates of 1894. There is not a single prediction in the present Debates that was not made then. Why is the country in it in spite of all this?
  We have heard about this being a method of taxing capital, and not merely of taxing capital, but of wasting capital. That is the great argument. An hon. Member, in the course of the Debate this afternoon, and an hon. Member who has a good deal of knowledge on the subject, said that since Sir Wm. Harcourt's scheme 25ft millions of capital had been squandered. I am not sure of the exact word, but what he meant was wiped out or extinguished—that is, that 250 millions of capital had been

  631
  extinguished. On the authority of Sir Robert Giffen we have been adding at the rate of 250 millions per year to capital, so that if we have extinguished 250 millions it is a consolation to know that we have added three thousand five hundred millions during that time, and taking that estimate of Sir Robert Giffen of the addition of 250 millions per year to the capital of the country, what is my poor increase of Death Duties? It means an increase of 6d. in the pound taken out of the natural increase. I propose to take six millions out of what is the vast natural reserve which swells the amount of capital every year? Now, really, to talk as if you were gradually wasting away capital which you had laid by is absurd. What is the capital of this country. The capital of this country is fifteen thousand millions, and the six millions which I propose to put on represents a third of a farthing in the pound on that capital. At that rate it would take three thousand years to expend it, even assuming we were not adding to it, and if there is talk about dissolving capital it would take three thousand years before this island is dissolved. After all, there is a much greater waste of capital going on in foreign countries, where they are conducting their operations by borrowing.
  The borrowing of 14 millions in one great country to meet annual expenditure—that is what I call wasting capital.
  What happens in this country? At any rate in our proposal we are setting aside seven millions to pay off debts, and not only that but different outgoings that were formerly borrowed for we are paying out of annual expenditure. What is capital after all. The main part of capital depends upon the efficiency of the people who have got to handle it, and deal with it, and if you spend money on raising the general condition of the people, and raising their efficiency, you are increasing the value of capital. Every penny which is raised out of Death Duties or out of any other tax for the purpose of the social amelioration of the people is money which is spent on increasing the capital efficiency of the country. In every business the efficiency of the people who conduct, it is part of the goodwill and the capital, and very often the main part of it. For that reason when there are proposals of this kind, I say that an efficient people and a contented people give the best security to property.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 122.

  Division No. 120.]

  AYES.

  [7.15 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Byles, William Pollard

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Agnew, George William

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Alden, Percy

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Erskine, David C.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Astbury, John Meir

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Ballour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Crean, Eugene

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Halpin, J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Branch, James

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brigg, John

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caitnhess-sh.)

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Harwood, George

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duffy, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Middlebrook, William

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scars, J. E.

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

  Mond, A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seddon, J.

  Hlgham, John Sharp

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hogan, Michael

  Morse, L. L.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophat

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Snowden, P.

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Myer, Horatio

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Napier, T. B.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Summerbell, T.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Partington, Oswald

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lamont, Norman

  Pointer, J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Verney, F. W.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lchmann, R. C.

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walton, Joseph

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Waring, Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rees, J. D.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Randall, Athelstan

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, A.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wiles, Thomas

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williamson, A.

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

  Robinson, S,

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Young, Samuel

  Massie, J.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Joseph Pease and the Master of Ell-

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  bank.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  NOES.

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Cross, Alexander

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cave, George

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

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

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewishan)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Foster, P. S.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Lows, Sir Francis William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Gordon, J.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanler, Beville

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Starkey, John R.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moore, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Oddy, John James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Keswick, William

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Winterton, Earl

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Renwick, George

  Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Younger, George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwlch)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  A. Acland-Hood and Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir s. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia.

  Motion made and Question put: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, settlement Estate Duty shall be charged at a rate double that at which it is now chargeable, and that for the purpose of any claim to relief from Estate Duty under sub-section (2) of section five or sub-section (1) of section twenty-one of The Finance Act, 1894, in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, payment of or liability to duty
  (whether the payment is made or the liability attached before, on, or after that date) in respect of settled property on the death of a person (other than
  the settlor), who was at the time of his death or had been at any time during the continuance of the settlement competent to dispose of the settled property, shall not be deemed to be a payment of or liability to duty in respect of settled property."—[Mr. Lloyd- George.]
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 123.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

  Meager, Michael

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Harwood, George

  Menzies, Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Middlebrook, William

  Seddon, J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mond, A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Henry, Charles S.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, P.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Holt, Richard Durning.

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Myer, Horatio

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Napier, T. B.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholls, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Wllians

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nuttall, Harry

  Summerbell, T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jones. William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tomkinson, James

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pointer, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lamont, Norman

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

  Waring, Walter

  Lardner, James Carrlge Rushe

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Radford, G. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Reddy, M.

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

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Richardson, A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williamson, A.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robinson, S.

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

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wood, T. M'Klnnon

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Young, Samuel

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rose, Charles Day

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launcesten)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Joseph Pease and the Master of Ell-

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

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

  bank.

  Massle, J.

  Samuel, s. M. (Whitechapel)

  Division No. 121.]

  AYES.

  [7.27 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dobson, Thomas w.

  Agnew, George William

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Duffy, William J.

  Alden, Percy

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, A. Acland (Chrlstchurch)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ersklne, David C.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Clough. William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Furness. Sir Christopher

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Crooks, William

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

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Crossley, William J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Branch, James

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Brigg, John

  Davies, M Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Halpin, J.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davles, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Delany, William

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

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

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

  Harmsworth. R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hart-Davies, T.

  NOES.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

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

  Cave, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Farcell, Sir T. George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Fell, Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Foster, P. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Gordon, J.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stanier, Beville

  Gretton, John

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Moore, William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Oddy, John James

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

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

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Kerry, Earl of

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Winterton, Earl

  Keswick, William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Renwick, George

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Younger, George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Motion made and Question put: "That after the 30th day of April, 1909—
  1. Any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of three per cent. shall be payable at the rate of five per cent., and any Legacy or Succession Duty now payable at the rate of five per cent. or six per cent. shall be payable at the rate of 10 per cent.;
  2. Legacy and Succession Duty, payable at the rate of one per cent. under the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Succession Duty Act, 1853, respectively, or any other Act, shall be charged, notwithstanding any repeal effected by or anything contained in any other Act, and the duty shall be charged in the case
  of husbands or wives as in the case of lineal ancestors or descendants;
  the Resolution to take effect in the case of Legacy Duty only where the testator by whose will the legacy is given, or the intestate on whose death the Legacy Duty is payable, dies on or after the 30th day of April, 1909, and in the case of a Succession Duty arising through devolution by law only where the succession arises on or after that date, and in the case of a succession arising under a disposition, only if the first succession under the disposition arises on or after that date."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 127.

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

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

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gill, A. H.

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

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Massie, J.

  Seddon, J.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Shackleton, David James

  Halpin, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Silcock, Thomas Bail

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Middlebrook, William

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Molteno, Percy Aiport

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Mond, A.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Snowden, P.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Harwood, George

  Morse, L. L.

  Splcer, Sir Albert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stanger, H. V.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Stewart-Smith, D (Kendal)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Napier, T. B.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholls, George

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Summerbell, T.

  Hogan, Michael

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hope. John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Isaacs. Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Verney, F. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walton, Joseph

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones. William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, J.

  Waring, Walter

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kilbride. Denis

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Laldlaw, Robert

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

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lamb. Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Radford, G. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

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

  Lamont. Norman

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Reddy, M.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rees, J. D.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merloneth)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

  Williamson, A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, A.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Young, Samuel

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, S.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Mackarness. Frederic C.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Maclean, Donald

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Joseph Pease and the Master of

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rog, Sir Thomes

  Elibank.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. (Newman)

  Division No. 122.]

  AYES.

  [7.39 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brigg, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brodie, H. C.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Alden, Percy

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Allen A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Delany, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cameron, Robert

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

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Duffy, William J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

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

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

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

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Branch, James

  Crooks, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bull, Sir William James

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Banner, John S. Harmonc

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Ashley, W. W.

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

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Renwick, George

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Clyde, J. A.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Keswick, William

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Craik. Sir Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cross, Alexander

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanler, Seville

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long, Col. Charles W. Evesham)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M'Calmont, Col. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fell, Arthur

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Foster, P. S.

  Moore, William

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

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

  Gordon, J.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Winterton, Earl

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Oddy, John James

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Gretton, John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Younger, George

  Guinness, W. E (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W.

  A. Acland-Hood ant Viscount

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Valentia.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Question put: "That in the case of persons dying on or after 30th April, 1909, five years shall be substituted for 12 months as the period preceding the death of the deceased before which a disposition purporting to operate as an immediate gift inter vivos, or a surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, must have been
  made or effected in order that the property taken under the disposition, or affected by the surrender, assurance, divesting, or disposition, may not be included as property passing on the death of the deceased."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 124.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Massle, J.

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

  Halpin, J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sears, J. E.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seddon, J,

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Middlebrook, William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

  Molteno, Percy Aiport

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Simon, John Alisebrook

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

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Snowden, P.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

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

  Stanley; Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Myer, Horatio

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Napier, T. B.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholls, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Summerbell, T.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tomkinson, James

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Philippe, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Jowett, F. W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pointer, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Walters, John Tudor

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Walton, Joseph

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

  Waring, Walter

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lambert, George

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Reddy, M.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rees, J. D.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Richardson, A.

  Whitley. John Henry (Halifax)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merloneth)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Williamson, A.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Maclean, Donald

  Robinson, S.

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Young, Samuel

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

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Rose, Charles Day

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Joseph Pease and the Master of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Elibank.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whltechapel)

  Division No. 123.]

  AYES.

  [7.50 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

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

  Alden, Percy

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

  Delany, William

  Allen, A, Acland (Christchurch)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duncan, J. Hastings' (York, Otley)

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Beale, W. P.

  Clough, William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Erskine, David C.

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

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

  Evans, Sir S. T.

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

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Berrldge, T. H. D.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Gill. A. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Boland. John

  Crossley, William J.

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

  Bower man, C. W.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Branch, James

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Glover, Thomas

  Brian, John

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Brodle, H. C.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  NOES.

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Ashley. W. W.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edward H.

  Cross, Alexander

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Cave, George

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Beckett, Hen. Gervase

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Faber, George Denlson (York)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Stanler, Seville

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Gordon, J.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Starkey, John R.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gretton, John

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Moore, William

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Oddy, John James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peel. Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hunt, Rowland

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

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

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Younger, George

  Keswick, William

  Renwlck, George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  H. W. Forster and Lord Balcarres.

  Motion made and Question proposed: "That in the case of persons dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine,—
  (1) no reduction shall be made in the estimate of the principal value of any property under sub-section (5) of section seven of the Finance Act, 1894, on account of the estimate being made on the assumption that the whole of the
  property is to be placed on the market at one and the same time;
  (2) the limitation on the estimate of the principal value of agricultural property under the same sub-section shall cease."
  —[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 122.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Seddon, J.

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morse, L. L.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Simon, John Aliesbrook

  Hon, Richard Durning

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

  Snowden, P.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Napier, T. B.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholls, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Isaacs, Ruins Daniel

  Nussey, Thomas Wilians

  Steadman, W. C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendai)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Straus. B. S. (Mile End)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Partington, Oswald

  Sutherland, J E.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lambert, George

  Pickersyill, Edward Hare

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

  Lamont, Norman

  Pointer, J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Verney, F. W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Walton, Joseph

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Waring, Walter

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burgis)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rendali, Athelstan

  Waterlow, D. S

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, A.

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, A. Osmond (Merioneth)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Williamson, A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Hassle, J.

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  Masterman. C. F. G

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Menzies, Walter

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

  Young, Samuel

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Middlebrook, William

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Moiteno, Percy Alport

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

  Joseph Pease and the Master of

  Mond, A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Elibank.

  Morey, L. G. Chiozza

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney Charles

  Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

  Agnew, George William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Ainsworth. John Stirling

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Alden, Percy

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Chance, Frederick W.

  Erskine, David C.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Evans, Sir S. T.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clough, William

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cobbold. Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow. Sir John E. (Somerset)

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

  Barran, Sir John Nicholson

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Beale, W. P.

  Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crooks, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dalziel, Sir James Henry

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Halpin, J.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Harcourt, Pt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boland, John

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

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

  Branch, James

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

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.) '

  Brigg, John

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Brocklehurst. W. B.

  Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Brodle, H. C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

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

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Harwood, George

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, J. Hastinns (York. Otley)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  NOES.

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

  Carllie, E. Hildred

  Duncan, Robe't (Lanark, Govan)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Anstruther-Gray. Major

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cave, George

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

  Ashley. W. W

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fell, Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Baldwin, Stanley

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gordon, J.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Gretton, John

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cross, Alexander

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred. Dixon

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Du Cros, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert

  Moore, William

  Stanier, Beville

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Morrison-Bell, Captain

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hunt, Rowland

  Oddy, John James

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Keswick, William

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Vaientla, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Peel, Hon. W. Robert Wellesley

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lane-Fox, G. R

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

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

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Renwick, George

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  M'Arthur, Charles

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Taibot and the Marquess of Hamil-

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  ton.

  MOTOR CARS.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in lieu of any Excise duties now payable for motor cars, there shall be charged, both in Great Britain and Ireland, in each year, for every motor bicycle or motor tricycle a duty of one pound, and for every other motor car a duty at the following rates, calculated in accordance with horse-power:—

  Horse-power.

  Duty.

  Under 6½

  Two guineas.

  6½ but under 12

  Three guineas.

  12 but under 16

  Four guineas.

  16 but under 26

  Six guineas.

  26 but under 33

  Eight guineas.

  33 but under 40

  Ten guineas.

  40 but under 60

  Twenty guineas.

  60 and over

  Forty guineas.

  "That the duty under this Resolution shall not extend to motor cars which are charged with duties as hackney carriages under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, or to motor cars which are not carriages within the meaning of that Act, and that the unit of horse-power for the purpose of the duty shall be calculated in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury for the purpose."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: In rising to speak on the question of the taxes on motor cars, I am afraid I shall not meet with very much sympathy. Speaking on behalf of the owners of motor cars, no doubt I shall be regarded as speaking in favour of luxuries, and it will be held that because they are luxuries they should be taxed. We have been discussing now for
  652
  some days past different sections of the Budget, and those sitting on the Opposition side have found it necessary to make certain charges in regard to the taxes imposed of penalising certain sections of the community. So far as this tax is concerned I have no political charge of that kind to make. I quite realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in need of a certain sum of money, that he has looked round him to find out where that money can be obtained, and in doing so he has seen fit to propose a tax on the owners and users of motor cars. In the first place I object to a tax on motor cars just as I do to a tax on carriages, because it is either proposed as a tax on luxuries or on locomotion. If this tax is proposed as an impost on luxuries you have to prove that first a motor car is a luxury, a contention which I should very strongly contest.
  I hold that a motor car has now become almost a necessity, that it is very largely a commercial vehicle, not used, it is true, for carrying goods in that sense, but used by doctors and travellers, and by many people for other than purely pleasure purposes. In that sense I do not think a motor car can be classed as a luxury, and, therefore, should not be taxed as such. If we admit for the moment that a motor car is a luxury, there is no reason why other luxuries should not be equally taxed. I appeal to hon. Members to discuss this question without the prejudice which to some extent attaches to motor cars. I have the honour to be the chairman of the Motor Union, and we do all we can to instil into the members of that body the desirability of moderate and careful driving, so that they should not become a nuisance to the other users of the road. I submit in any case that the Budget should not be used to penalise all motoritsta

  653
  because some motorists may be road hogs. Let laws be carried as strictly as possible against the road hog, but do not attempt to impose additional taxation on all motorists because of the unpopularity of a certain number of their community. I cannot help thinking that to some extent the higher scale of duty proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on cars of twenty and forty guineas is an extraordinary rate. The taxation proposed by the Budget is of rather a startling character as far as the increase is concerned; but I must confess that I am bound to protest against the particular scale proposed. If you object to very high-class cars bring in a Bill to prohibit them, but do not use the Budget as a means of penalising them. I have endeavoured to find some figures as to the use of motor cars and the number of accidents. In 1905, which sure the latest figures, there were 2,732 motor cars of the average value of £374. Therefore the fashion is not so very luxurious after all. A very large proportion were small power cars. In 1906 the motor cars travelled 44,352,000 miles, and there were only 16 accidents. Of that number of cars there travelled for pleasure 1,019, and the remainder for business. These figures are somewhat of a revelation. Since 1905 the number of ears used for business purposes by professional men, such as doctors and so forth, has greatly increased; and, so far as I know, fatal accidents have not increased in proportion to the use of the cars. They are used every day for business purposes. The motor car is daily becoming more and more a business carriage. It is used for general business purposes. I wish to tell the Members on the Front Opposition Bench that there is and has been going on a considerable reduction of the horse power of the cars, which will bring the cars within the means of the less wealthy classes of the community. They have become a necessity to a very large class of the community. The great question is not that of accidents or reckless driving, but dust. Local communities have done their best in dealing with that question. Some remedies have been proposed; and it is not a mere possibility, but almost a certainty, that there will be a system of road-making—both road-making and up-keeping—which will render the roads practically dustless. The proposed tax will make it unable to find the necesary funds for carrying on these experiments, and the use of experiments in many roads will be done away. The
  654
  motor community is not indisposed to the taxation of motors. I admit that motor cars are a source which must be taxed. But the taxation proposed under this Budget is of such a startling character, so far as the increase is concerned, that I shall have to protest, if the Budget goes through, against the particular scale of taxes proposed. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his scale from. I have before me the scale proposed by the Royal Commission which reported two years ago. The Royal Commission proposed a scale of taxation on this basis. Motor cars not exceeding 12cwt. pay 2 guineas on the present basis; it was not proposed to change that. But on motor cars of from 12 to 15cwt., whereas the charge was 2 guineas, the Royal Commission proposed to raise it to 3 guineas, and they went on on that scale until they reached the high-weighted cars. The present taxation on high-weighted motor cars is 4 guineas, and the Royal Commission proposed that it should be 8 guineas. If the Government had confined themselves to the proposals of the Royal Commission I do not think that any particular fault would have been found with them by the representatives of motorists in this House, although even this taxation on the motor cars is far higher than that upon any other class of vehicle.
  But we have to realise now that on the ordinary motor car we pay double the taxation upon a horse carriage. We are entitled to say, in considering this question, it has not been proved that motors make dust. I agree it has been abundantly proved that they stir up the dust, but the dust is undoubtedly made by horses' hoofs, and I think it is clear, and has been abundantly proved, that if all horses were eliminated the roads would be much more dustless than they are at the present moment. But for high-weighted cars, travelling at a high rate of speed, the roads would not by reason of the motor traffic, be very much worse than at present. The high-power car exceeding the speed limit undoubtedly does do harm to the roads, but the ordinary motor of 12, 15 and 20 h.p., travelling within the legal limits of speed, does not do so much harm to the fabric of the road as many other vehicles, and if we are to be taxed as is proposed for the upkeep of the roads, I want to say that in theory such a tax is absolutely bad. It is going back to the old time of the turnpike. The old system was that every road-user should pay for the use of the road at every turnpike,

  655
  and the heavier vehicle paid more than the lighter one. If you are going to tax solely and simply because of the use of the road, I say that in theory it is wrong, because it is a reversal of the policy which was adopted when turnpikes were abolished, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a retrograde step by the renewal of what practically is the turnpike system throughout the country. There is no more reason why men who use a road should be taxed for the upkeep of the road because they used them than that a man should be allowed to say, "I do not choose to pay for the lighting of a street because I never go out at night." The street is lighted in order that he may have the benefit if he chooses to take advantage of it. A man might say he would not pay for the upkeep of a road because he never uses it, but all these theories have been swept away long since, and yet to-day, in the year 1909, this progressive Chancellor of the Exchequer is going back to the old system of turnpikes—the system of trying to compel the user of the road to pay for the upkeep of the road. To that policy I intend to give my strongest opposition.
  I admit that the regret with which the motor car owners have seen this tax proposed is a great deal mitigated by the purpose to which it is to be devoted. It is not to be devoted to the general purposes of taxation in this country. If it were going to be devoted to any of those purposes which we have been debating at length in the last fortnight I should think the motorists would be compelled to object to the imposition of the tax, but they have admitted their willingness to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a small additional tax provided that that additional tax is devoted to the improvement of the roads. I was one of a deputation which waited on the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to discuss the whole question of an additional tax upon motorists, and we told him frankly that, while in theory we were opposed to additional taxation, we were willing to submit to a moderate tax if the money thereby raised were to be given to a central authority for the purpose of improving the roads of the country. That is the basis upon which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking to place this extra tax upon us, in order that a central fund may be created for the purpose of improving the
  656
  roads of the country. No one can deny that, apart altogether from the question of motors and the use they make of the roads, the system of roads in France, where they have national, departmental, and communal roads, is clearly better than the system which obtains in this country, especially when one realises that in this country we have 2,000 bodies who have control of the roads. The Great North road runs through the jurisdiction of some hundreds of local authorities, each jealous of the other's position, and I do feel that the whole community, and not merely the motoring community, will benefit from the establishment of a central organisation to take charge of the duty of improving the roads of the country. If we had had this central organisation a few years ago we should have long since got over the dust difficulty, and the experiments which motorists have been making at their own expense would have had the result that we should have had large stretches of roads made with new and improved material, and the whole community would have been much better for the central administration proposed to be set up by the Government with the proceeds of this particular tax. While we are prepared to pay a slight moderate increase of duty in order that this central department may be set up, we do ask that the Department which is to have charge of the improvement of the roads should not be set up entirely at the expense of the motoring community. The whole community will benefit from it. The farmer and the tradesman will reap the benefit, and we do ask that the Government should devote not merely the increased taxation, say, £260,000, which the Budget will raise, and also £340,000 which the right hon. Gentleman hopes to get, and which I do not think he will get, from the proceeds of the Petrol Tax—this £600,000 which is to be raised for the purposes of the roads should be a general burden, and I would suggest further that out of the overflowing surplus which it is admitted the right hon. Gentleman will have this year, he should give at least £1,000,000 to make the Roads Department really efficient, in order that we may have some means of making our main roads more nearly akin to a great many of the roads on the Continent.
  I come next to the views of the Royal Commission on Motor Traffic. The Royal Commission recommended that the revenue from motors should be devoted to roads,

  657
  and this Central Department is to be formed accordingly. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he brings in his Bill, which I presume will be a separate one, apart from the Budget, to consult motoring organisations who are going to provide some portion of the money, and I also hope that in the establishment of the central authority he will include some representative of the motoring organisations. We submit that all taxation upon motor cars, not merely any addition of taxation upon them, and also all taxation from all vehicles, should be carried to the account of this Central Road Department. I think that is a reasonable proposal. When we are asked to assent to larger taxation upon ourselves, it is a reasonable proposal that we make to the Government, that not merely the taxation from ourselves, but from other vehicles, should be carried to the account of this Central Department, which will have to deal with the roads. It is a small matter, but I also venture to suggest—and here my withers are un-wrung, as I have never been hauled before any bench of magistrates—I venture to suggest that those fines which are paid, so willingly and happily by motorists for exceeding the speed limit, should be devoted, not to the districts in which the fines are inflicted, but to the Central Department for Roads. There are reasons for this, although I do not wish to make any aspersions upon these benches of magistrates, who do, I am quite sure, their duty. But at the same time, I have personally conversed with a magistrate in a district near to my own, and he told me, "Yesterday, do you know, we bagged £100 in fines from motor cars," as if it was good sport. That is not the principle on which justice should be administered by our county benches, and I suggest that it might conduce to a little more leniency, and to our being treated with a little more of the milk of human kindness, if the fines went to this central road organisation instead of to the funds of the locality in which they were inflicted. And it might make it more pleasant for motorists to pay these fines.
  I want to say a word as to the effect which this tax has already had, and will have with increasing force, with regard to the motoring trade itself. I would say at once, I have no interest in the motor trade. With regard to petrol, upon which I hope to speak next week, I shall at once tell the House that Ihave some small interest for some client. But as to the motor
  658
  trade, I have no connection whatever with it. We have inquired, and we find that contracts for new cars, which were negotiated a month ago, have been stopped and cancelled. These were contracts, not for ordinary pleasure cars, but for ordinary commercial vehicles. The selling value of cars has been depreciated, and to-day it is almost impossible to dispose of a large second-hand car at the price you could have disposed of it a month ago, before this very high tax on high-priced cars was brought in. A number of people with very large incomes have already given up their cars. In fact, I think that a Member who sits on the Front Bench opposite has, in consequence of this unfortunate Budget, already given his chauffeur notice. If that happens on the Front Ministerial Bench, what is likely to happen in other quarters of the House? But, after all, though the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may not have an interest as employers of chauffeurs, they have an interest in this matter, because they represent these men, who are a part and parcel of the great working community, and represent a large number of men employed in motor car works, who will feel the strain. If any large tax so great as this is put on, it will prevent men from buying the higher-priced cars, the six-cylinder cars especially, and these are nearly all manufactured in England. I am sorry that the President of the Local Government Board is not here this evening, because he has to do with unemployment, and I believe if he were here, and were asked his opinion, he would tell us that the one trade of England which, during the last two years, though it had not paid high profits to manufacturers or shareholders—the one trade which had increased the number of men employed in it—thei number of high-class artisans, is the motor manufacturing trade, and it is a very serious thing if the Government do anything which would tend, as I think this will tend, to throw out of employment a considerable number of skilled artisans engaged in Coventry and other parts of England where the motor cars are made. Everybody knows that the motor trade has been passing through a very serious crisis in the last two years. I will not mention names, but well-known firms have had to be reconstructed and to obtain additional capital. And yet you are putting this tax on them to-day. I am not saying that a moderate increase would do so, but this almost oppressive increase will undoubtedly tend to decrease the number of cars in use, and

  659
  therefore to decrease the number of cars manufactured. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was apparently gloating over the fact that his tax on whisky would tend to decrease the consumption of that spirit. Any tax of a serious character must tend to decrease the consumption of an article, and if a tax on whisky tends to decrease the consumption, a tax on high-class cars must decrease the number of them in use. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to tax the cars on the principle proposed by the Royal Automobile Club, which depends upon the measured length of the cylinder and not on the length of the stroke. I know this is a little technical, but I want the Under-Secretary for the Home Office, whom I see opposite, to realise that this will have the effect of stereotyping the class of engine to one of narrow diameter and a very long stroke. This will cause a certain number of manufacturers who have been manufacturing a different type of engine to alter their mode of manufacture, and thereby cause great expenditure. I should also like to ask how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax steam and electric cars. Under the present system they are all taxed on weight, and I do not see how he is going to tax them under this proposed Royal Automobile rating. I wish to bring before this Committee also the extraordinary jumps in the right hon. Gentleman's proposed scale. It jumps from 33 to 40 and from 40 to 60 h.p., and that is bound to have a very serious effect upon the makers of some cars.
  May I take two kinds of cars, one of 39 h.p. and one of 40 h.p.? Other things being equal, the two cars are practically of identical h.p., and the purchaser to-day takes his choice. The tax is the same. After the Budget is passed he will naturally choose the 39 h.p. rather than the 40, because there will be a considerable extra tax on the latter. The effect will be that the manufacturer of the 39 h.p. car, which is standardised, will have to alter the whole system of manufacture, and establish a fresh system in order to bring it down to 39 h.p. and to get the advantage of this particular tax. There is a great deal to be said in favour of taxing by horse-power. It is simpler, and it is easier. Everyone can take his car and have it weighed on the nearest weighbridge, and, moreover, it is a proposal which is recommended by the Royal Commission, which took a considerable amount
  660
  of evidence and heard motorists all over the country. Assuming for a moment that motorists are to accept—and I do not think they will lay any very great stress in their opposition to it—a form of taxation by horse-power I suggest rather seriously that the right hon. Gentleman should tax by unit of horse-power, which would be very much better than jumping from 33 to 40 and from 40 to 60. Any man who has a h.p. of just 40 is to be taxed exactly the same as a man with a h.p. of 59. Obviously there is very grave unfairness in that, but if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to tax by unit of h.p., it is perfectly simple when once you have studied the system, because the h.p. would be measured under the provisions of the rating of the Royal Automobile Club to a nicety, and you will not be able to say your motor car is 10 to 20 or 30 to 40 h.p. It will be 28, 29, or whatever it may be exactly. It is not for me to have to say what the units should be, but I want to be in a conciliatory mood to-night, and I want to show the right hon. Gentleman that we are not so totally devoid of all feeling to other road users, and that we are prepared to gracefully concur in any moderate increase of taxation upon ourselves. I suggest as a compromise that half-a-crown per horse-power, with perhaps a minimum for the smaller cars, would be a fair proposal. A 40 h.p. car thus would pay £5 10s., which is higher than at present, and a 60 h.p. car would pay £6 2s. 6d. It is a mode which could be perfectly fairly and perfectly easily worked, and would give no difficulty to the officers of the right hon. Gentleman, and all sections of the motoring community would, I think, agree to it.
  While I do not want to force this matter to a Division or to go into the Lobby as an out and out opponent of any further taxation upon motor cars, because I realise the benefit which not merely motorists, but all members of the community, will have from the establishment and the maintenance of this central road authority, I want to say we shall be bound as the Budget goes further through the House to oppose this unless the right hon. Gentleman comes to some fair compromise as to the amount of the tax which he proposes to put on. He must not forget that in addition to the taxation proposed in the Budget there is a tax on petrol, which will be a very heavy additional tax upon all users of motor cars—the private owner, the business owner, the doctor, the veterinary surgeon, and others whose cars are

  661
  really part and parcel of the carrying on of their business—and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as we are prepared to meet him in a conciliatory spirit, and to say that we will not oppose tooth and nail any taxation, that before he brings in his Finance Bill he should consult with some representative of the motor users either in this House or out of it. I believe he has consented to receive a deputation which I am afraid may not be able to take place owing to the extraordinary difficulty of his finding time until after Whitsuntide. But I suggest that if he can stave off that deputation by modifying these taxes and making them, as I suggest, half-a-crown per horse-power—and though I have no authority to speak on behalf of all the motorists of the country, I believe the very great majority of them will fall in with some such proposal—we shall be able to save him a very great deal of time and trouble and brain worry in getting this portion of his Budget through the remaining stages.
  Mr. W. W. ASHLEY: The hon. Member who has just addressed us stated that these proposals took us back to the old days of turnpikes. I personally think that the old clays of the turnpikes were eminently reasonable and fair to all people concerned. In those days the people who used the roads paid for them. It was undoubtedly disagreeable when riding on the road on a cold winter's evening to have to pull up and fumble your money and pay it out; but still those people who used the roads and raised the dust paid. On the Great Bath Road you can see the place where they got the water to water the road and put down the dust near Slough, just as we have to now when a motor car comes along. Although owing to the greatly increased traffic on the roads and the modern impatience of being kept waiting this system is done away with, still I think it was a very fair system. There is undoubtedly in the country districts, I know there is in Lancashire, grave dissatisfaction and natural dissatisfaction that people who come from London, Manchester, Liverpool, and all the great towns of England whirl through the countryside, cover the fields with dust, destroy the crops and fruit trees, and pay not a single farthing towards the upkeep of the roads which they are using. Under these proposals of the Government I think we have a fair system outlined, namely, that the
  662
  people who use these touring cars should contribute towards the upkeep of the roads through which they pass, and which the inhabitants, the farmers, and local gentry generally hardly use at all compared with those who come from a distance. But when I come to the scale which is proposed I think on the highest cars the Government is going perhaps rather further than the year justified. Of course, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must get money. We cannot ask the Government to increase the Navy and do other necessary things unless we who own motor cars and others are prepared to put our hands in our pockets and find the money. So far as I am personally concerned, I think what is proposed in respect of cars up to 33 h.p. is an eminently fair proposition, but when we come to the proposal with respect to cars of 40 to 60 h.p., namely, 20 guineas, I think the charge might be modified. I think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unfair not only to the people who use cars, but also to an industry which, after being long handicapped in this country, and which started long after the French and German industry, has, through the energy of our manufacturers and the skill of our workmen, taken, I shall not say a leading place, but, at any rate, an equal place with the industry as carried on on the Continent. It is proposed here that directly you get to 40 h.p. the duty is to be 20 guineas. Perhaps my withers are wrung in this matter, for I own a 40 h.p. car. It seems to me hard that I should have to pay 20 guineas, while if it was a 39½ h.p. car I should get off with a payment of 10 guineas. After all, that is a minor matter. It may be said that if I choose to have this car I should pay for it. My car is manufactured by an English company who employ entirely British workmen and use British materials. They have standardised the cars at 40 to 60 h.p., and if we are going to put these taxes on practically all their machinery will be useless. They will have to go to great expense in order to provide machinery to build cars of smaller horse-power, and I would ask the Government whether the proposed scale could not be modified in order not to do injustice to a British industry which in the last two or three years has made such tremendous strides. If the Government cannot accept the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester of so much per unit could

  663
  they not see their way to adopt such a scale as this?

  26 to 33 h.p.

  8 Guineas

  33 to 39 h.p.

  10 Guineas

  39 to 47 h.p.

  12 Guineas

  47 to 55 h.p.

  14 Guineas

  55 to 59 h.p.

  18 Guineas

  59 to 63 h.p.

  20 Guineas

  Over 63 h.p.

  40 Guineas

  That would bring practically the same revenue to the Exchequer. Under the scale proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a 40 h.p. car will pay the same as a 59 h.p. car. If such a proposition as I venture to suggest were adopted the revenue would not be hurt and a sense of injustice would not be created among the owners of motor cars, and, above all, of cars of British manufacture. I am sure we, whatever our views in regard to Tariff Reform or fiscal policy, would not wish to place our manufacturers at a disadvantage under this schedule.
  Mr. C. D. ROSE: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) on the manner in which he has placed the case before the Committee for a modification of the proposed scale of duties payable for motor cars. I should like to say that motor cats have been held responsible for damage done to roads in a way which has not been justified by the facts. The dust is created by the horse traffic and not by motor cars. I attended a conference recently at which this question was discussed, and the evidence brought forward was unanimous that the actual dust is created by the horse traffic. That being so, I think my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester must reconsider the suggestion he made with respect to the cost of maintaining the roads. I should have been glad indeed if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen his way not to impose any further taxation on motor cars at all, but I have been compelled to look at this question from the point of view of the financial needs of the country. The right hon. Gentleman is face to face with large requirements. During the last 10 days those connected with every industry which will be affected by the new taxation have been crying out. There have been protests against the increases in the Licence Duties, the Spirit Duty, the Income Tax, and the Death Duties. That being so, it is hardly reasonable to expect that the owners of motor cars should be exempted. The whole question is whether the increased taxation
  664
  in their case is too severe, or in any way of a vindictive character. I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) that when the Finance Bill is in Committee it would be desirable to have some modification of the scale now proposed. That scale provides for a duty of 10 guineas on cars from 33 to 40 h.p., and 20 guineas on cars of 40 to 60 h.p. That, I think, is too great a jump. I do not know what kind of car my hon. Friend owns.
  Mr. ASHLEY: A "Napier."
  Mr. ROSE: My hon. Friend is a greater authority than I am on the matter of cars. I do not know how that would be classified by the Royal Automobile Club, but his car might come out as high as 60 h.p. It is well known that nearly all these cars called 40 h.p., if really tested, develop up to nearly 60 h.p., so that if my hon. Friend is taxed for a 40 h.p. car he probably ought to be taxed for a 60 h.p. car. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing this schedule has been influenced by the amount of money he requires to raise. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester that the scale proposed is going to injure the motor industry, but I am afraid he will not get very much sympathy from the general public, and perhaps even in this House, in his protest against the high tax proposed to be put on cars of 60 h.p. He will find that the majority of the Members of this House would be very glad if these high-power cars were done away with altogether. Their objection may not be well grounded, but yet I think they would find that it is the case that, taking the actual number of cars of that high power, it would not bring very much revenue to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the central authority I hope my hon. Friend will look very carefully into the Bill when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces it, and see that this fund is going to be applied towards the maintenance and remaking of the main roads of this country and making them suitable for motor traffic, and I hope that the authority which he is going to create will be vested with ample powers, so that the motor car owners will be able to look to it to have the roads properly repaired. I personally, as a motorist, would be very glad indeed to submit to great sacrifices if the central road authority uses its powers properly and improves our roads so as to make them really suitable for motor traffic, the saving to the users of motor cars on tyres and otherwise

  665
  will be very much more than the extra tax which is being imposed at the present time. I should be very glad if some slight modification of the scale might be effected, but I am speaking for myself. My hon. Friend opposite spoke as chairman of the Motor Union, a position which I had the honour of occupying a few years ago, but though I am connected with the Automobile Club I am speaking entirely for myself. I have no authority from them. But with some slight modification in the scale, if the central road authority is going to be a practical authority, I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in this scale of duty.
  Mr. G. N. BARNES: I need scarcely say "that I do not speak from the point of view of others who have already taken part in the Debate—the users of motors cars. I speak rather from the point of view of the makers of the car. I hope I do not take a selfish view of the matter. Maybe, like other people, my views are affected by the fact of my being an engineer representing engineers; but I hope not. I have regarded this particular tax with somewhat mixed feelings. In the first place, having regard to the fact that motor cars are luxuries, and having regard to the further fact that they are public nuisances, I think they ought to be taxed. On the other hand, I do not like a tax of this sort. Here, is, perhaps, where my selfish motive may come in. I do not like it, because it is a tax upon an industry, and therefore likely to diminish that industry. I do not subscribe to the doctrine that we should not tax any industry. I think we ought to have regard to the character of the industry and what bearing it has not only upon the wealth of the country, but upon the well-being of the people of the country. And I think that this particular industry is one that does employ a large number of people, and I am glad to know a rapidly increasing number of skilled workmen under good conditions of labour at high rates, and therefore it does increase the spending capacity of the mass of the people. Altogether it adds to industrial efficiency and employment, and therefore from that particular point of view I do not like to tax it On the other hand, one must admit a thing of this sort should be taxed, as it is a luxury, and one which, I think, has been used almost to the point of abuse in many cases by having these very high-speed cars and by having the machinery so low down in order to get that speed
  666
  that it makes a great deal of dust, and is altogether a nuisance on the roadsides, and, I believe, also lessens the fertility in. some districts by deposits on the fields. Therefore I regard the tax with mixed feelings, but, on the whole, I am inclined to accept the principle of the tax, and I am induced to do so to some extent by the fact that those who use the cars have been generous enough to say they are willing to bear a further tax in order that they may use their cars.
  So far, therefore, as I have to say anything about the matter at all, it is simply to offer a few words in the way of an appeal for leniency upon the owners of the cars. I think—and I speak here with some practical knowledge—that one should be very careful how one interferes with a trade of this sort, especially a trade which my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board knows is a trade which is now standardised. I mean to say in the workshops you have all kinds of things made for every size, and anything that would tend to upset the manufacturer of certain types and sizes would be a very great hindrance to the industry, even more than the amount of tax imposed upon the users of the car, although that is very considerable. I was talking to a man the other day who had been thinking of getting a car, but the increased cost to be put upon him in respect of the use of that car, he told me, had decided him not to get one. So even from the point of view of the increased tax it may have the effect of diminishing the industry. However, I accept the principle of the tax, but I want to add my voice to those who have already spoken in this Debate to ask the Government to be as careful as they can and to lessen the steps of the stairs in such a way as to interfere as little as possible with the carrying on of this industry, which, as I said before, is employing an increasing number at high wages and under comparatively good conditions of labour. In reference to the old toll-bar gates, it seems to me that the time for toll-bar gates has gone. Toll-bar gates and motor cars at 40 miles an hour will not harmonise at all. We have got beyond those days. Therefore, whatever may be done in the way of putting a charge upon the users of cars, I should think it should be done in such a way as at all events to keep the roads quite clear; and I think the idea now put forward by the Chancellor of ear-marking this particular tax for the improvement of the roads, and therefore

  667
  relieving the local authorities to some extent, is a good one. I accept the principle of the tax, but I ask the Chancellor to be very careful not to interfere unduly or more than is necessary with a highly developed trade, a standardised trade, and a trade which I think is a very great advantage not only to engineers, but to the whole country.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: The most noticeable feature of this Debate is the extraordinary change which has come over the spirit in which we are discussing this matter. I am sure many of those present remember the angry passions aroused on both sides in previous Debates, and nobody can fail to be struck with the most remarkable, and, indeed, almost perfect, harmony that reigns on both sides of the House on this question to-night. There seems something remarkable in the influence in this connection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must be something of a magician, because if anyone had said two years ago that the representatives, if we may call ourselves, of the motoring interest would be gathering here to accept with great sympathy the Chancellor's proposal to raise something like £600,000 a year from them, he would have been thought at that time to have taken leave of his senses
  I only rise, like nearly every previous speaker, to express my substantial agreement with almost everything that has already been said. In contradistinction to the hon. Member opposite, but in agreement with the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), I hold that to say the users of the roads should pay for the roads is entirely false in principle. I think the roads of the country are as much a national asset as the Army is a national asset, and that there is no philosophical road system except the one which resembles the French road system, under which the main roads are kept up by the State, and the smaller roads are kept up by the local authorities. But that view, unfortunately, has very little support here, largely, I think, owing to the prejudice against motor cars, owing to the nuisance that they undoubtedly are, in most cases, because of the bad condition of our roads. That view receives little acceptance to-day, and therefore we are face to face with the problem of accepting the inevitable, and motorists are face to face with the problem of making the best bargain they can with the Chancellor of
  668
  the Exchequer. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present. While the duties are so high, his reply, it seems to me, will be perfectly obvious, that if a certain sum of money is to be devoted to the improvement of our national roads it would not be for a moment worth while raising a sum of money unless it were really a substantial sum, which would enable any authority really to deal with this great question in a manner worthy of its importance. These new rates are, of course, very high, and the burden is increased by the tax on petrol. We cannot discuss petrol to-night, but I only refer to it because the cost of petrol to motorists has been in almost every observation I have heard or read on the subject very greatly exaggerated. It has been exaggerated even in this House. Though the rates are very high, yet I have seen almost no objection raised from any quarter by motorists. There have been a few angry criticisms, but, on the whole, these very high rates of taxation, considering the needs to which the funds are to be devoted, are regarded as quite fair and reasonable.
  I desire to associate myself very strongly with every preceding speaker—and I beg to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to this—because so far every speaker has complained of the jump from 40 h.p. to 60 h.p. in a car. The tax on a 39 h.p. car is ten guineas, and on a 40 h.p. car 20 guineas, which is quite obviously unreasonable. I go further, and say that to tax any car 40 guineas is unreasonable, and will not be regarded otherwise than as rather vindictive. Although I may by no means carry everybody with me in the view I am about to express, I think that the 60 h.p. car has exactly as much right to be on the roads of this country as the perambulator has. [Cries of "Oh."] Yes, absolutely the same right. The only thing that a community can properly demand from either the one or the other is that the driver of the 60 h.p. car or the person in charge of the perambulator and baby shall use the road in a proper manner, and always give proper consideration to other road users. There is nothing in right or in law which would justify anybody placing a vindictive tax upon a 60 h.p. car. It by no means follows that the higher power car is likely to be driven to the greater inconvenience of the public any more than the lower power car. If a man for family purposes wants a heavy class of vehicle to carry a larger number of people in silence and without the con-

  669
  stant nerve-racking shifting of the gear, then he must have a vehicle of greater horse power.
  I have drawn up my own little scheme of how this tax should be imposed. I attach no special importance to it in itself. Another hon. Member has also made a scheme. I should suggest that from 40 h.p. to 45 h.p. the tax should be 12 guineas; from 45 h.p. to 50 h.p., 15 guineas; from 50 h.p. to 60 h.p., 20 guineas; and from 61 h.p. and over, 25 guineas. I protest once more that 40 guineas is excessive, and it may be gathered from every hon. Member who has spoken that such a tax would be a great deterrent to very many purchasers, and it would greatly set back the manufacture of that class of vehicle in which certainly this country is leading the way at this moment, namely, the six-cylinder car. I have given a great deal of attention to the question of the rates, and I do not think the figures I have submitted would reduce the Chancellor's receipts by any sum of importance. As to the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester that these rates in general will act as a set-back to the motor car industry of this country, I do not think that view can be held on consideration, because it has been calculated it is the best calculation available, though of course it is not strictly accurate, that 20 per cent. of the cars of this country come into a class of over 12 to 16 h.p., and they are now to pay four guineas instead of two guineas as before. Nobody supposes that the additional tax of two guineas would prevent the prospective purchaser from carrying out his intentions. Of cars from 16 h.p. to 20 h.p. there is no less a percentage than 30 per cent. of all the cars of the country, and they are to pay six guineas instead of two guineas. Anybody who is going to have a car of that value is certainly not in the position which would lead him to refuse to have it because his licence would cost him four guineas more a year. There is one suggestion I should like to make, although I am sure it will be rather of an unpopular character. It is a suggestion by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might add slightly to the sums to be derived from the taxation of motor cars. I hope I have as much sympathy with the noble profession of medicine as anybody else has, but for the life of me I see no more reason why a doctor's ear should be exempted from taxation than the car of any other professional man. The builder, the surveyor, the commercial traveller, and, above all others, the vete-
  670
  rinary surgeon, have certainly as much right to be relieved as the doctor of taxation, and the veterinary surgeon even much more so, because he has always to go to his work, whereas a good deal of the doctor's practice comes to his own front door.
  It is true that the medical profession, to their very great honour, give much precious service gratis or for next to nothing, but, on the other hand, the possession of even the smallest car will enable the doctor—if he has the other qualifications—to practically double his practice. Why you should relieve them of a few shillings of the cost, for it will only be a few, on an object which will enable them greatly to increase their incomes, for the life of me I cannot see. A doctor of small means will certainly use a car of under 12 h.p., which is a most serviceable vehicle, and will do very much that the owner of the car can desire. That doctor, under these proposals, would have to pay three guineas instead of two, and if you give him a rebate of one-half, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making him a present of 10s. 6d. That cannot be said to be any great boon to the poorest members of the medical profession, and it is hardly worth the trouble of giving it. The doctor who uses a valuable car, and a powerful car, which, probably, the ladies of his family use for their own purposes, can well afford to pay the increased licence of six guineas instead of two, which would only mean two visits of two guineas each. If the Chancellor does not see his way to abandon what I venture to describe as unjust and unreasonable relief, I would strongly urge him to limit it to the cars of 12 h.p., because there can be no possible reason for giving any relief to a doctor who can afford to own and use a valuable car.
  I need not occupy the time of the Committee in dwelling on our road system, concerning which the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) spoke so well. Everyone who has looked into it knows that it is grotesque. The Great North Road, of which he spoke, is not controlled by 100 authorities, but. by 72, of whom 46 are active authorities, who exercise actual and practical control over it. Some of them, as the Chancellor reminded us in his Budget speech, control so little of it as a mile or a mile and a-half or two and a-half miles. Many of those authorities work harmoniously together: others work very jealously, and some of them are ludicrously ignorant of the very beginnings of the science of road upkeep.

  671
  Others of them, as is the case of the county surveyor of Kent, are some of the most scientific road-makers in the world. The whole thing is simply a jumble, and the establishment of a central road authority would be a benefit which is really difficult to exaggerate. I feel that not alone those who take an interest in motors, but that the whole community is under a very great debt to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his recognition of this great national need and the courage with which he has grappled with the problem.
  The value of the new authority will and must depend entirely upon its constitution and the wisdom with which it exercises its control and spends the money which is assigned to it. From that point of view we await with eagerness the explanations and assurances which the Chancellor in due course will give us. There has been, as I think, a considerable misapprehension already upon this point, because I saw the other day, issued from the Liberal Publication Department, a leaflet calling the attention of rural ratepayers to the great benefits with regard to road improvements and the relief which they were going to receive under this particular part of the Budget. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's intention is that no present rating authority shall be relieved of any of the costs of road upkeep which legitimately fall upon them at present. Therefore, that being so, some of us probably on this side showed a misapprehension of the facts. I read also in an interview in a paper which finds favour with the other side in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was represented as saying that the Central Road Authority would have no power of initiative, that it would sit still until the proposals were brought to it, and if it would agree to them it would carry them out. We all know that a newspaper interview sometimes represents, and occasionally misrepresents, and I feel that in this instance the views of my right hon. Friend were unintentionally misrepresented, because, without initiative, I think everyone will agree, and without somebody at its head to exercise that power of initiative in a very courageous manner, the advantage of a central road authority will be gone. We have every confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not spoil a great scheme of reform by failing to constitute his authority upon a sound and permanent basis, and with powers ample to deal with the great
  672
  national problem which is committed to their claim. There is one other matter I wish to refer to, and which has already been touched upon by one speaker, and that is with regard to the fines which are at present levied by magistrates for exceeding the speed limit. I do not like to use strong language, but it is a gross parody of justice that takes place. I would go so far as to say in some instances within my own knowledge—
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is it in order to discuss the question of fines on motors when we have no opportunity of replying?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): I was about to call the hon. Member's attention to that point.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: Upon a point of order, as the Central Road Authority is concerned with this discussion, may I point out—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are dealing just now with the imposition of the tax, and the question of the imposition of fines by magistrates is not in order.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: Those remarks of mine shall be deferred to another occasion. I would only conclude by saying that I am sure the general public, and the motorists as well, are indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his action in this matter, that they will willingly bear the heavy burdens imposed upon them, and that they look to him, in the constitution of the Central Road Authority, to justify in every way their public spirit and confidence which they place' in him in this matter.
  Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Norman) begun by telling us that a man has a good a right to go 40 miles an hour in the roadway as a nurse has to push a perambulator. ["No."] He instituted a comparison between a 40 miles an hour car and a perambulator. ["No."] I am afraid that the hon. Baronet is terribly mistaken if he thinks that the resentment of the general public against the motoring community at large has in the least degree died down. Personally I believe it has been keenly intensified, and I have my own ideas and doubts as to some of the more or less fatal accidents which have occurred in connection with motor cars at night within the last few years. As a matter of fact, why should the motoring community dispute this small levy upon its investment

  673
  in automobile cars? Why should a man who can afford to run a 1,500 or 2,000 guinea automobile complain at being charged 40 guineas a year for it. The wails of the wealthy are always ringing out in this House. Whether it is income tax or a tax on automobiles it is always the same. It is the wealthy man who gets up with tears in his eyes to protest against having to contribute something substantial and according to his means to the funds required for the public service. If the hon. Baronet objects to this tax, he has a very reasonable alternative proposal. He might suggest that all motors for use on public roads should be geared down to a certain maximum speed, and that racing motors should be confined to racing tracks, built at the expense of gentlemen who take an interest in whizzing round the country at 60 miles an hour. These people seem to have no idea of their public responsibilities. They apparently think that the owner of a 1,500 or 2,000 guinea car, with tyres heavily studded and ribbed with steel, tearing up the roads in all directions, has no duty to pay towards the upkeep of the roads which it more or less destroys. In Paris, for instance—a city where I am as much at home as in London or Dublin, and where I have relatives and friends—motor buses have to pay anything from £40 upwards a year as a tax to the Government, which tax is returned to the Municipality of Paris towards the upkeep of the roads.
  Mr. DU CROS: Is not that a monopoly?
  Mr. HAVILAND - BURKE: Certainly not. It is a public act of State that heavy vehicles, weighing tons upon tons, which necessarily, even when most carefully driven, put an extra strain upon the roads, should pay a heavy tax to the State, which is afterwards transmitted to the municipality for the relief of the taxpayers in the maintenance and repair of the roads.
  Mr. DU CROS: Is not the running of the buses a monopoly?
  Mr. HAVILAND-BURKE: I am satisfied with my statement that the motor buses have to pay a heavy tax towards the upkeep and repair of the roads in Paris. As I have friends and relatives there, and go there every year, I ought to know something about it. Why should the enthusiasts of the motoring world object to this tax? I am not for a moment saying that a large proportion of motorists are not good sportsmen, or do not exercise their
  674
  cars with every possible care and with attention to public convenience and safety; but in this matter, as in others, Parliament has to legislate not for the people who use their liberty rightfully, but for those who use it wrongfully. There are places round about London where 10 years ago men could take a pleasant country walk on Sunday afternoons, but where one would be a fool now to walk or cycle with the motor traffic as it is at present conducted. On that ground alone I submit that the motor industry honestly owes this tax to the State for the repair and upkeep of the roads, which are only too much and overwhelmingly monopolised by the motoring community at the present time.
  Mr. H. H. MARKS: I fail utterly to see any indication of the vindictive or penal character of the taxes which the Government propose on motor cars. I do not know whether it has been in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to penalise the owners of motor cars because there have been accidents—maiming, wounding, and even killing—nor do I understand that it is his object to put a penalty upon the proprietors of motor cars because they raise a dust. It is possibly in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman to say "Down with the dust," but not exactly in the sense in which it has been suggested. The right hon. Gentleman wants money, in which respect perhaps he is not peculiar; but he wants it in larger quantities than most of us, and he has better opportunities than most of us for getting it. He has turned his eyes upon motor cars as a source of revenue. ["No.] As a source of revenue in this sense, at any rate, that the money is to go to public purposes. I can think of no institution in the country better entitled to be taxed, and to be more highly taxed than it is now, than the motor car. I speak as one who has had the privilege of driving motor cars since their first introduction into this country. The motor car is a luxury, and it is luxuries which ought to contribute very largely to what is required for public purposes. The tax proposed by the Resolution does not seem to me to be excessive. I admit that the rate of graduation when it gets to the higher figures is a little jumpy, and I should have been disposed myself to have regarded the very high figure imposed upon 60 h.p. automobiles as almost prohibitory, in view of the representation which has been made that these high horse-power cars are for the most part made in England, whereas

  675
  the lower horse-power cars, which are principally pleasure cars, are made abroad. Frankly, I am bound to say that I should have received these proposals with infinitely more satisfaction if there had been a rebate in favour of cars manufactured in Great Britain. I believe an overwhelming majority of motor car owners in this country would rather pay double a tax if there was a rebate in the case of British-made cars. I am bound also to say that in the Resolution which immediately follows the one under consideration it appears the duty is not to extend to motor cars which are charged with duties as hackney carriages, nor to motor cars which are not carriages within the meaning of the Act. I think that relieves one substantial objection which would otherwise have been urged, and I think urged with reason.
  There will be a charge of 40 guineas on a 60 h.p. car. 1s 40 guineas such a terrible rate to pay on a 60 h.p. car? Who is the man that drives a 60 h.p. car? What does it cost him for side-slips and punctures in the course of the year? What does it cost him for fines for rapid driving in the course of the year? What is 40 guineas to the man who owns a 60 h.p. car? Is there a man who has got a 60 h.p. car who has not got two others, or at least another one? For no one goes crawling about the City of London in a 60 h.p. car. No, Sir, I cannot help thinking that the tax to be imposed upon these motor cars is a legitimate tax, a proper tax. I wish it had been made larger, if the making of it larger would have exempted petrol from taxation. But upon that point I may not say more at this stage. It has been suggested that these new imposts are going to ruin the motor car trade. They are going to do nothing of the kind. They are not going to affect it in the slightest degree. Since the introduction of these Budget proposals the shares of motor car manufacturing companies in this country have gone up, and have not gone down. If there is a fair tax proposed by the right hon. Gentleman it is this motor car tax, and I do not think in the course of the Debate this evening there has been a shred or a shadow or a scintilla of argument against it.
  Mr. ARTHUR B. MARKHAM: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not weaken in this matter, but will keep to the proposals that he has on the Paper. I would remind him of what my right hon. Friend below me (Sir H. Norman) stated this evening.
  676
  May I call the attention of the Committee, to a very remarkable article written in the "Contemporary Review" a year or two ago by the hon. Baronet, to the effect that he never went out without exceeding the speed limit. Before that and then, he was chairman of the Departmental Committee inquiring into this question of motor cars. I have always remembered that article. He wrote exactly what everybody knows, that people do not obey the law with respect to the speed limit.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: I referred to the open country.
  Mr. MARKHAM: In that article the hon. Baronet urged (hat the man with the heavy car should not be handicapped. What is the fact? Every time the owner of the 60 h.p. car gets on the roads he breaks the law. If this House passes legislation which is to be treated as nonexistent, and is disobeyed day by day all over the country, then the only way to prevent it is by the imposition of such taxes as are comprised in this schedule, which will be a deterrent to building high power cars. I think it cannot be, argued that 60 h.p. cars have any right to be on the road at all. They are not built, as my hon. Friend has stated, for the purpose of carrying large numbers of passengers in private cars, but are built for the convenience of the road hogs; people who choose, to go about the country to the danger of the public, and simply for their own selfish amusement. I therefore sincerely hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue this duty of 40 guineas, and when it reaches the Committee stage I will move an Amendment to increase it. If I am not out of order in moving that increase I will move it now. Can it be said that a 60 h.p. car is built merely for the purpose of carrying passengers and driven up to a speed not exceeding the limit? I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not give way. Great pressure is to be brought to bear on him in all directions to lessen his taxes. But in these proposals we are at rock bottom, and I hope he will not give way—I earnestly appeal to him not to do so—to the motorist community, who are always crying out that they are being hurt by legislation, and who are now protesting against the Death Duties, which are reasonable to a degree. The hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. H. II. Marks) made a speech that was a most reasonable one. A man with a 60 h.p. car pays 2,000 guineas for it—
  Mr. H. H. MARKS: Twelve hundred guineas.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Well, I have never owned a car beyond a 40 h.p. one, and that I had a few years ago. Be that as it may, these schedules of rates on motor cars are a minimum.
  With regard to doctors' cars, I hope my right hon. Friend will not change his views about them. There are a great many doctors earning a very small income in country districts, and who work extremely hard for it. A motor is a matter of great convenience to them and to their patients. And so far as that goes I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his proposal. At all events, he will have my vote as far as all these duties go, and my only regret is that they are not higher in respect to 60 h.p. cars.
  Mr. ARTHUR DU CROS: My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), when he opposed this Resolution, made it clear that he was in no way associated with the industry we are discussing. I wish to make it clear that I am in an indirect manner interested in the industry, and that I speak with some knowledge upon the subject, although I cannot come within the category defined by the hon. Member for the Tullamore Division of King's County (Mr. Haviland-Burke), who spoke below the Gangway, and who said that the motor community was selfish and presumptuous. I am sorry he takes such a pessimistic view of motorists as a body, but if his view as to them is as happy as his view of the statements made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Norman), who spoke before me, I hope the Committee will not be unduly influenced by his remarks. In reference to the remarks made by the hon. Member as to motor 'buses in Paris, that, as is well known, is an industry which has a State grant, and which, therefore, is in a position to pay any licensing demand. I think I voice the views of all moderate motorists when I say that motorists as a body do not object to the principle of the taxes proposed to be levied in this Resolution, and I hope that hon. Members who have protested against the attitude of motorists will bear in mind (hat no objection has been raised by motorists to the principle of the taxation proposed to be levied. What we object to is the amount of the tax in some cases. I cannot agree with the remark which was made by the hon. Member opposite when
  678
  he stated that the amount of the tax and the petrol taxes have been generally accepted by motorists. He went on to say that except in one or two obscure trade organs they have been accepted. I cannot agree with that view, because I have very carefully perused all the trade organs in connection with the industries, not obscure and not unimportant organs, and everyone of them agreed with the principle of the tax proposed to be levied, but they objected unanimously to the amount of the tax.
  Sir HENRY NORMAN: I was not speaking of the petrol tax. I was only referring to taxes of motor cars.
  Mr. DU CROS: I accept what the hon. Member has said, and as to the scale of the taxes I agree with what he said that up to a point they are not at all unreasonable. It is only when they reach a point where we are dealing with higher power cars that the tax becomes unreasonable. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement pointed out that he did not wish to hamper this industry, but looked forward to the business being developed to a great extent. I think it is an industry that wants help, especially at this moment. It passed through a period of depression, and has not recovered from a very disastrous year of trade. I have in my hand a statement showing the result achieved by five firms, and showing the enormous diminution of profit as between 1907 and 1908. The depreciation of profit amounted to close upon half a million of money. I certainly am of opinion that heavy, unreasonable taxes imposed at this moment will go far to accentuate the depression now existing. It is obvious that all the efforts of manufacturers have been in the direction of cheapening their products, and if you put on a very large tax, such as a 40-guinea tax, it must add enormously to the difficulties of a trade now in a depressed condition. I notice nearly every hon. Member who spoke against what I am defending as the motor industry has alluded to motor cars as a rich man's luxury, and one hon. Member added that they were a public nuisance. That is perfectly true up to a point, but I would ask hon. Members, especially below the Gangway, to bear in mind that behind this rich man's luxury and public nuisance there exists a great and important industry employing many thousands of working men in this country, and I do not think their interest should be passed over in silence by hon. Members

  679
  who referred to motorists in these terms. I wish hon. Members below the Gangway had seen, as I have seen, thousands of working men pouring out of the factories in London, Coventry, and Birmingham, and if they would bear in mind that any injury done to the trade will fall upon those men, perhaps they would not be so anxious to condemn motorists, especially as we do not object to the tax. We welcome the tax in principle, but we object to the amount of the tax.
  The only thing we do protest against is that it is too heavy in its incidence, not throughout the whole scale but throughout certain parts of the scale. What we ask for is modification of this 60 h.p. tax, which I hold is an unreasonable amount, and for reasons which I will make clear. I think this high tax will injure trade, especially in this respect: It will hamper the sale of second-hand cars—a most important consideration. As the hon. Members know, it is the universal custom for men to change their cars, either for the purpose of getting new types or for the purpose of getting higher-power cars, and the sale of second-hand cars reacts immediately upon the sale of new cars. If the second-hand sale is retarded, the output of new cars is limited. I think the strongest case of all against this tax is on behalf of 40 and 60 h.p. cars. I hold no brief for the higher-power car; I do not think I ever sat behind one in this country, but it is a useful car, and it is useful for the purpose for which it is built. It does happen that, in this country, there are many of these cars on the stocks only in a half-completed condition. I leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to say what prospect the makers of these cars have of finishing that stock of cars at the present time if this tax is put on. I did hope when I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that the 60 h.p. car was not to be in the lower category—he dealt with cars up to 60 h.p. and over 60, but he did not deal with 60, and that is a car which has been specialised in this country—I did hope that he would have something to say in regard to that particular car. Perhaps I could give the right hon. Gentleman one technical piece of information upon that subject which may enlist his sympathy. The so called 60 h.p. car built abroad in reality develops a practical horse-power of 120. They have been built for these very undesirable road races which have been stopped in this country, and in the stoppage of which I have had a very
  680
  considerable share. But the cars built abroad for these races are specially built to come within a rating of 59 h.p. and a fraction, and they develop on the road 120 h.p. The English car is absolutely 40 h.p. and develops 70 or 80 h.p., so that the result is that the foreign car, which develops this enormous horse power gets to under the low rate.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is the hon. Member quite sure that under the tests suggested by the Automobile Club these foreign cars would escape?
  Mr. DU CROS: Yes. It was upon that basis that I made my remarks. As a matter of fact under the R.A.C. rating these cars would be rated as 59.9 h.p. They are very accurately built, because they must comply with the conditions of these races, whereas the 50 h.p. touring car is actually 60 h.p. For that fraction of a horse power on paper, which on the road disappears, they are going to be penalised to a very large extent. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to give relief to the 40 and 60 h.p. cars. I am not prepared with any scheme, but I hope he will give the points I have raised his very careful consideration.
  Another branch which I desire to refer to is the motor cycle branch. That is an industry which is in its infancy in this country. It is a small but a growing industry, and if the poor man in this country is ever to have a motor vehicle of his own it will probably be a motor bicycle. Motor bicycles change hands at something like £10, and the Inland Revenue tax upon them is £1 and the driving licence 5s., and besides this there is the tax on petrol. Upon an article which changes hands at £10 on the first instance, and which ought to be placed within the reach of a poor man, a tax of this kind is quite out of all proportion. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the taxes which he is placing upon motor cars, I think he will at once see that this tax as applied to motor cycles is out of proportion. These motor cycles have a 2 h.p. engine and the machine weighs about 100 pounds, and they have two wheels, and therefore they cannot be said to do a great deal of damage to the roads. I think these points should be specially considered. There are only about 40,000 of these motor cycles in the country at the present time, and the difference to the revenue if the tax was levied at a lower figure would only be about £10,000. The motor cycle industry is one to which in

  681
  recent years a great deal of attention has been paid. It is one which has experienced a falling off, but manufacturers are now trying to build it up again. Taking the horse-power and the price of the vehicle, I think a tax of 25s. is particularly onerous.
  I am not sure whether the light hon. Gentleman in placing his tax upon 40 and 60 h.p. cars was aiming at the prohibition of excessive speed on our roads. If he was, all I can say is that he will not achieve that object, because, as a matter of fact, motor cars can be built coming under the rating of £4 4s. and £6 6s. which will develop 60 miles an hour on the road. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman before he finally adopts the rate which has been suggested to hear the representations of those who represent the motor car industry upon this subject. Motorists do not wish to evade any portion of this tax, but they do not wish anything done which will unnecessarily hamper the motoring industry. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind on this subject until he has heard the representations which will be made to him by the representatives of the industry itself upon this point. I wish to say a word or two with regard to the objects for which this money is being raised, i.e., the improvement of the roads. That is a matter which the motoring community is very glad that it is now being dealt with, and it ought to have been dealt with long ago. On the other hand, motorists feel that they are not the only users of the road, and they are not the only people who damage the roads. At the Roads Conference which was held last week it was made abundantly clear that other users of the roads damaged them considerably, particularly traction engines, horses' hoofs and narrow iron tyres, and other vehicles. I cannot see the equity of penalising one particular user of the road for the benefit of the whole community. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the words "that the motorists must bear the brunt of the expenses at the beginning." I hope that the meaning of those words is that later on other users of the roads will be taxed for the purposes of maintaining the roads. Motorists do not wish to shirk their liability in this respect, and I contend that they have performed a very useful service to the community, because they have brought home to the road authorities the necessity of constructing our roads on scientific principles. This fact has been demonstrated by the county surveyor of Herts, who has stated that the
  682
  cost of properly constructed waterproof roads, free from dust in the summer and free from mud in the winter, is not greater than the cost of roads made up on the old system with granite and water. These waterproof dustless surface roads are made at less expense, and they carry heavy motor traffic without any signs of undue wear. When those results have been attained I think it will prove of ultimate permanent benefit to the community, and all users of the roads ought to contribute to the cost. I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words he used in his Budget statement have reference to the ultimate possibility of securing contributions from other users of the roads. I think it would be useful if we could get some indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether a guarantee will be given that this money will always be applied for this purpose and that these taxes are not likely to be further infringed. That would have a tranquillising effect upon the minds of many motorists if they knew that these taxes are not likely to be increased in the future. I do not know how much money will be raised under this scheme, or how much will go to the local authorities. I think that the total amount to be raised is £410,000. It would be useful to know what proportion of that money will be under the control of the central authority, and how much will be handed to the local authorities. I should like to know how this central authority will be constituted. It has been said that money is coming in, and that it will be spent in the improvement of the roads. Our roads are not to be compared with the roads of other countries. For many years they have been neglected. I think that the principal point to which we attach importance, owing to the present Resolution, relates to 60 h.p. cars.
  Mr. J. CATHCART WASON: There is one portion of the hon. Member's speech in which I cordially agree, and that is that every user of the road should be called upon to contribute to the cost of the roads. There are cars which break up the roads in competition with our railways. The right hon. Gentleman in his great Budget speech said that this tax was not in any proper sense of the word a tax. At the back of the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I think, the idea to meet a great public difficulty. It may astonish some of my hon. Friends to know that when this matter came up some time ago, I said the motor cars had come to stay,

  683
  and that everything should be done to encourage the industry with due regard to public safety. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the object of this Resolution and this additional impost on motor users should go to the upkeep of the roads. It is no tax in the ordinary acceptation of the term. Those who complain of the tax on high-power cars are not quite reasonable. They ought not to be allowed to exist, but my right hon. Friend has allowed them to exist on paying a high price. No one will do anything to hamper the motor industry. It is a great industry, and one of great importance to the welfare of this country, and it will be a greater industry in the not far distant future. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman who spoke last—a distinguished expert in this matter—that great motor manufacturers prefer to encourage low - power cars. Instead of one motor car worth £2,000 they would prefer a hundred motor cars worth £200 each. I do not think that hon. Members have any right to complain about the heavier tax imposed on high-power cars. The low-power car does not raise the same amount of difficulty. I am sure if we look at the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had, we shall agree it is a Budget for which the whole House of Commons and the public at large ought to be more than grateful in view of the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has adopted with regard to this question, in having tried to ameliorate the conditions in certain cases when he would have been perfectly well justified in leaving the matter to be dealt with by the President of the Local Government Board. I am sure the whole community is more than grateful to him. There is one point to which I wish to draw attention. I think those who know the life of the poor country doctor and the difficulty he has in getting about the country will appreciate this point. I think I may say, as a rule country doctors use very low horse-power cars, and I think he would make no very great sacrifice if he exempted these cars altogether. They are propelled by 16 h.p. They are generally used by doctors, who in Scotland lead a very hard life, and anything whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do to make life easier, both to them and to the poor people whom they visit, will be gratefully received. Question after question has been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to lightening the burden in other respects, and I think the right hon. Gentle-
  684
  man will be doing a great public service, both to the doctors and to the poor people in the North, if he can make a concession in regard to these cars. I cordially congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he proposes to deal with the roads of the country. They have got into a most parlous state within the last five or six years. In some counties touring cars have done enormous damage to the roads, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will be appreciated by those who suffer from the inroads of high-power cars. In the action he has taken I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman will earn the goodwill not only of the House of Commons, but of the community at large.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I honestly confess, as a Member for a rural district, I am anxious on this occasion to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer his due. If the other taxes in his Budget had been equally fair and conveyed equally good news to the rural districts, I should be glad to be found among his supporters. This is a tax which, as a motorist, I am glad to welcome. I have never before felt any gratitude towards the Chancellor for any tax, and I am afraid, on this occasion, by doing so, I shall raise the wrath of my hon. Friend near me. My Constituents in a rural part of Essex, who have suffered some inconvenience, will look upon this tax as having originated in my brain, and I shall have considerable difficulty in proving that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not myself who started it. It is a tax which I have always advocated, and I think it is thoroughly fair and just. But I should like to have seen the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the English manufacturer on a level with the foreigner; he should have treated this in the same way as he treated German beer. But I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is young and is not omnipotent, and I know he would have had some difficulty in persuading his Cabinet that this was a fair and just matter. With regard to the rebates to doctors, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns. It is a very fair rebate, and one which I should be personally sorry to see extended to others. If once you extended it to the veterinary surgeon the parson would claim it, on the ground that he wanted a motor when he was carrying the last consolations of religion to a dying parishioner. I might think I was entitled to it when I was rushing off to see a voter who had previously been on the other political side. But the rebate to the doctor is really fair. I do

  685
  not want to argue the question of graduation, but I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that this money does really reach the rural villages. I am always afraid, when I hear of a central board, that in our bucolic ignorance we do not get the money, and I hope in the allocation of the money the rural local authority will be remembered, because they have had to bear the nuisance and the expense of repairing the roads. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear the matter in mind.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I regret that it was impossible for me to hear the whole of the Debate, as I know that the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is an authority on this subject. It is a pleasure to end these proceedings in Committee with a statement from a Gentleman about to be taxed that he is very glad to be taxed and to hear from another Gentleman who is very hard hit by the tax that he welcomes it, except that he said while he accepted it in principle he objected to the amount. That seems to me to be a kind of criticism which I am getting rather accustomed to. It is not so much the principle as the principal of the tax that he objects to. I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Du Cros) that this tax is sufficient for the purpose. He said something about the nuisance of the motor. I deprecate altogether the idea that the tax is proposed as a kind of attack on motorists. On the contrary, the idea is one of quite a different character. There is no doubt that motors have put up the cost of road repairing very largely. In a Debate initiated by the Noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Viscount Helmsley), I think at the beginning of the Session, figures were given with regard to the enormous increase in the highway rates, and it was generally agreed that part of the increased expense was attributable to motors. I am not sure that is altogether a bad thing for the roads, because what it really means is that the advent of the motor has made an improvement of the roads absolutely necessary. The old road will not do now that motor traffic is developing. To that extent we owe a debt of gratitude to the motor. Those of us who live in rather out of the way places, in more or less sparsely populated districts of the country, know the difference the motor has made in that respect since we were satisfied with roads which had not been brought to anything
  686
  like their present condition, and it is the motor which calls attention to all the bumps and the holes, and the stones in the road. They are all found out by the motor, as anyone who has travelled in parts of Ireland has discovered. All the same, there is no doubt motoring has had the effect of very considerably increasing the highway rate throughout the country, and there is a general feeling that there ought to be a contribution from the motors of the country towards the road expenses.
  The hon. Member for Hastings, and I think the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, pressed me very hard with regard to the allocation of the money. They are very anxious, naturally, on behalf of the motorists of the country, that whatever money is spent should be spent on work which is referable to the motor traffic, and that it shall not be used merely for the general purposes of keeping down the highway rate and not merely for the improvement of roads, but for improvements which may be directly attributable to the necessities and exigencies of motor traffic.
  Sir H. NORMAN: I did not say that, but that they should not be used in relief of local rates.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is what I mean. I think they ought to be devoted solely to the use of the highway authorities of the country. It is intended to be used for the purpose of improving the roads and to make better motor roads. Naturally, no doubt that that will have an effect on the local charges, for the simple reason that a good many local authorities now spend huge sums of money in making roads fit for motors, and to that extent grants must reduce the rates in districts where considerable sums of money are spent. My hon. Friend wanted an assurance that the authority to be set up would have some initiative. At present my view is that the initiative ought to rest with the local authority, but I am quite open to conviction on that point. This is a matter I should like to discuss with the representatives of local authorities and of the motor industry as well. My view is that the local authorities ought rather to submit schemes for the improvement of the roads. For instance, you might have a county where there was a great deal of motor traffic. The local authorities know the roads; they know the dangerous parts of the roads, they know where the sharp curves are, they know where the roads are

  687
  narrow, and where at present they are not fit for motor traffic. They can prepare schemes for the general improvement of the roads in their county, such as cutting off corners, making roads straighter and wider in places where they are too narrow, and very likely in having diversions made round villages, where at the present moment some of the worst accidents happen. There are many villages where something of that nature is required. Most of the saddest accidents have happened in cases of that kind, and I can well understand a road authority having as part of its general scheme for the improvement of the roads of the county the construction of a road round a village. My idea rather was that the local authority having knowledge of this sort should submit its scheme to the central authority and ask for a grant.
  I do not propose that the central authority should prepare schemes, but that they should have the power of making suggestions. They should suggest alterations and improvements on a scheme, and they should be able to say, "We will not give a grant for this scheme because we do not think it will suit the purpose; but we suggest improvements and alterations, and if you see your way to adopt them, we will make a grant." My idea was that the money should be spent on schemes approved by the central authority. I should like to see the central authority go further than that, and I think the time has come for new road making, especially in some parts of the country. At the present moment you get a very fine road up to a certain point. Then it seems to get lost, and it may emerge 50 or 100 miles further on. You get even old Roman roads in this country which have been left more or less derelict, and which would be exceedingly useful as connecting roads between one county and another. I think the time has come really for getting great national roads as in France. Hon. Members are well aware that we are behind some of our Continental rivals in that respect. I believe it would be worth the central authority's while to set apart a portion of this fund for the purpose of constructing new roads. I do not say that you could construct roads at £150,000 or £200,000 a year, but you want borrowing powers for that purpose. After all, it is permanent work, and, therefore, a good deal of road could be constructed with something that would represent the capital value of £150,000 or £200,000 a year. That
  688
  is the sort of problem which I would rather like to refer to the central authority. I agree with my hon. Friend that the success of the scheme must depend on the road authority; but the success of every scheme depends on the kind of men you get to work it. The idea may be an excellent one, but if you do not set up a good strong authority to work it out it will be an absolute failure. Therefore I think that the success of this must depend entirely upon having a really good, sound, strong authority which will be perfectly impartial between the local authorities and the users of the roads, and would be strong enough to decide judicially the problems that have to be dealt with; that was rather the idea that I had.
  I cannot now go into the question of petrol, because it would be out of order; but when I come to deal with that question I will have something to say as to why we divided the contribution between petrol and a direct tax on motors. I should like to say a word or two on some of the minor points raised in the course of the Debate. A good deal of criticism has been indulged in about the jump from 40 to 60 h.p. I may say that I am quite unconvinced at the present moment by anything I have heard that we have not made the right proposal. I am not attacking in any way the 60 h.p. car. It is a very delightful experience to go on a 60 h.p. car through the country—except when there is a constable on the road. I do not propose it from the point of view of attacking the 60 h.p. car; but I should have thought that it was the most damaging vehicle as far as the road was concerned—and I have purely regarded it from that point of view—and that the difference in the damage done by the 40 and the 60 h.p. cars is a great deal more than the difference in the charges which I am making. But it is not merely that. When you get to the 60 h.p. car you reach a different class of men, men who are able to afford to pay for it. I do not want to do any harm to the motor industry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Du Cros) that it has passed through a time of depression; but that is not confined to this country. It has passed through a very dad crisis in France. I am not sure that it is not a worse crisis than it has passed through in this country. As the hon. Member for Newmarket (Mr. Rose) has pointed out in Italy it ' has passed through a bad time. I believe that it will be much better as trade improves, not

  689
  merely in this country but throughout the world, with America and Germany as well as here; I believe that there will be a considerable accession of prosperity to the motor industry. [An HON. MEMDEH: "You are going to take our money."] The very paltry taxes which I propose to impose upon those who motor will not make the slightest difference to them. On the contrary, it will make them all the more anxious to have some sort of relaxation from the anxieties of the Budget. Having heard so much about it, they will want to travel more for their health. I do not think there would be very serious objection. It really comes to this: that, in the improved condition of trade, if people are doing well, they will not think much of the taxes, however heavy they are. Therefore I do not think there is really a very strong case for abating the duty on the 60 h.p. car. As a rule it belongs to the man who can afford to pay. He is a sort of super-tax man; he is a super man; the 60 h.p. man is a super motorist, and I think he can very well afford the tax. The hon. Member went from the 60 h.p. man down to the doctor's small car. The reason why we have excepted the doctor is rather of a humanitarian nature. I think it is very desirable that there should be a difference in his case from the point of view of the person who lives in a remote district, where they have to travel four, five or ten miles for a doctor, and where the difference of an hour in his arrival may mean the difference between life and death, or the alleviation of pain and misery. Therefore I think the doctor is entitled to some exemption, and, if necessary, it should be substantial. That is really why I have not been able to consider the other claims for abatement which have been put before me in regard to others who do not come into the same category as the doctor.
  I would remind the Committee that, after all, this is not a tax for revenue; it is purely a tax which comes back to the community. All the exemptions which reduce the tax will simply limit the sum available for the improvement of roads. There will be all sorts of applications for abatements and reductions, but I hope the Committee will not forget that every abatement means a loss of money for the improvement of the roads. Here again I think if it is worth while at all we should get a substantial sum. If you reduce it to a mere minimum it will not be of the slightest use to the local authorities; there
  690
  will not be enough for them to look at, and there will not be enough to effect any real improvement in the roads. Something has been said about the taxation of other vehicles not quite of the same character. Take traction engines. After all, as a rule they are owned by ratepayers in the district. ["No."] As a rule they are. But the motorist is a man who may be paying rates in London and tearing up the roads in Shetland. He is not quite in the same category. You could not take a traction engine so far. I am not so sure, however, that there is not a ease for putting a heavier charge on traction engines, because any one who has experience of the roads in country districts knows perfectly well how they tear up the roads. But some of the best authorities on the subject say that, on the whole, the roads in the country are infinitely better after a few years of motor traction, because it has the effect of solidifying them. I do not, however, lay stress on that. I think I have dealt with all the points. I must express my indebtedness to the Automobile Club for the assistance which they gave me in the matter, and to the hon. Member for Newmarket (Mr. Rose) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Norman), who have been exceedingly helpful to me in perfecting this scale. I had to depend on them very largely for the advice that was given with regard to the method of fixing the horsepower. I am very glad that the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) in his speech approved of the tests of the Automobile Club as to horse-power. I shall deal later on with the method of spending the money when we come to the question of development. In the meantime I quite respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Du Cros) as to the motor manufacturers, and I shall be glad to have any considerations they would like to put before me. The sooner they do so the better. I have seen the motorists, and I quite understand that the motor industry should have something to say.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if we have any cause to hope for a tax on foreign motor cars?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Without committing myself to every detail, I desire to express my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the differentiation in favour of the doctor. Many of my Constituents feel very strongly on that point,

  691
  and I trust, as the Bill proceeds, we may he able to soften his heart in connection with the Petrol Tax in the same direction. The only other observation I have to make is in reference to the expenditure of the money. I do feel myself—I may be very old-fashioned—very great anxiety as to this new departure of making grants from a central authority for public works to be executed in various districts. It is all very well to say that the money is to be paid out for works which everybody desires. Anyone who has lived in the country knows that the local authorities always desire, and very properly, to carry out improvements in their roads and everything else. I confess it seems to me to be a dangerous precedent to put into the hands of a central authority, or really into the hands of the Minister of the day, because ultimately it must be that—I see great danger in the proposal. We have seen the bitter indignation of hon. Members opposite in connection with even such a matter as the appointment of magistrates. That is a much smaller matter, and one which really excites much less interest in a locality than the expenditure on the roads. Every Liberal Government which has ever existed has had some moments of acute fear lest they will be shattered because the Lord Chancellor of the day has not seen fit to remember the views of hon. Members opposite. The same will happen with regard to these roads. Applications will be made by Members on all sides for expenditure in their districts.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Not to the Minister.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it impossible not to have some Minister in Parliament responsible for the moneys, which, after all, come from the taxpayers, and that Minister will necessarily have to have the last word in the expenditure. Therefore it will ultimately be some Minister who will have the expenditure of the money. I know that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to be able to establish what he regards as a semi-judicial authority. I have very little trust in semi-judicial authorities. Judicial authorities are admirable institutions, and Ministerial authorities are all very well, but semi-judicial and semi-Ministerial authorities are generally much more Ministerial than judicial. I trust the Committee will not commit itself in
  692
  favour of the proposal until they have seen the details and have considered very carefully how they will work in practice.

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise)."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
  Colonel ROBERT WILLIAMS: I desire to move the omission of the words "National Debt" in order to raise a question with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for dealing with the Old Sinking Fund.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Resolution has nothing to do with the Old Sinking Fund. I do not propose to deal with that in the Finance Bill; it will be dealt with entirely separately. This is purely the ordinary formal Motion which is necessary before the Finance Bill can be brought in. The only difference this year will be that I propose to reduce the New Sinking Fund from £10,000,000 to £7,000,000. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Old Sinking Fund.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of order. I do not myself propose to oppose this Resolution, but I wish to ask whether it will not cover both Sinking Funds, and whether, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not introduce both Bills upon this Resolution. These Resolutions are necessary for the founding of the Bill to carry out their purposes, but there is nothing in them to cause the right hon. Gentleman to put all the substantive enacting clauses in one Bill. You may found as many Bills as you like upon the clauses, provided they are covered thereby. I think there will be no new Resolution on the Sinking Fund for the other Bill, which the right hon Gentleman will introduce.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know that a Resolution will be necessary at all for the other Bill; I am not sure about that. But the mere fact of this Resolution having been carried will make no difference at all in that respect. This has reference purely to the Finance Bill, and it is the formal Resolution which has been moved for 12 years at least without the slightest discussion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Resolution as habitually moved makes no reference to the Sinking Fund; it makes no reference to either Sinking Fund. This Resolution has a reference to the Sinking Fund because the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal both with the new and the old Sinking Funds. He now tells us that his proposals relative to the Old Sinking Fund will not appear in the Finance Bill. What I should like your ruling upon, Mr. Emmott, is as to whether this Resolution will not be sufficient to authorise both Bills dealing with the old and the new Sinking Funds?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think I can answer that question. This Resolution will not authorise the second Bill being brought in unless the Bill is brought in immediately. If it is not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so to do, this Resolution will not then authorise the second Bill. At the same time, the words of the Resolution would authorise the Old Sinking Fund being dealt with in the Finance Bill, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to do so. If he is bringing in a second Bill, but not bringing it in immediately, then this Resolution will not authorise it.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I may also point out that the second Bill would require a Resolution of the Committee of the Whole House, and not merely a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I propose to say a few words upon the new Sinking Fund. I look back to the Debate of 1899, when the Party on this side of the House was in power. The position as it stood then was this: The present Lord St. Aldwyn moved to reduce the Sinking Fund by £2,000,000. The annual expenditure for which he was then budgetting was £110,000,000. The annual expenditure for which the right hon. Gentleman is now budgetting is £164,000,000. That is an increase of £54,000,000 in nine years. I think, in fairness, I ought to say that I believe a certain portion of the local expenditure is now credited to the National Account, so that the difference is not so great as it seems. It is perhaps really £146,000,000, against £110,000,000. Well, that is a very large increase in expenditure. Ten years ago the National Debt stood at £627,000,000. It now stands at £702,000,000. In addition to all that, we have an expenditure incurred for Ireland for the purchase of land of something like £80,000,000, which, it is said, will be increased by another
  694
  £100,000,000. That is charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and it is practically a part of the debt, and, therefore, I am quite right in saying, without exaggeration, that the real increase in indebtedness is something like £250,000,000. I mention this to show how very much greater the argument is against making any reduction in the Sinking Fund now than in 1899. I will just content myself with making one or two quotations from the speeches made in the Debate at that time by right hon. Gentlemen, who are either Members of the Government in another place, or are sitting upon the Treasury Bench opposite. Sir Henry Fowler, as he was then, the present Viscount Wolverhampton, followed Lord St. Aldwyn, and could hardly restrain his indignation at the suggestion for the reduction of the Sinking Fund. He said:
  "At a time of unexampled prosperity—I venture to say that in the whole history of this kingdom there never has been such commercial financial prosperity as there is at the present moment"—
  I do not think we could say that now—
  "the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes we should diminish by two millions per annum the liquidation of the National Debt. I do not wish to forestall what may be hereafter said upon that question, but I have this to say. I feel strongly upon the question, and we should lose no time in expressing our opinion that at all events any tampering with the Sinking Fund is an operation which is disastrous and unwise."
  I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like answering questions, and generally says we must wait until the Finance Bill is introduced. The question I wish to ask cannot be answered in the Bill. What does Lord Wolverhampton say now to the suggestion that the Sinking Fund should be diminished? He said in 1899:—
  "Any tampering with the Sinking Fund would be disastrous and unwise."
  How has the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in getting his colleague to change his opinions? Or has he changed them? That is a question which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman might answer. Then we come to Sir William Harcourt. He said:—
  "That a time of the largest revenue and greatest prosperity"—
  Now we are at a time of the largest expenditure—
  "from the fiscal point of view, which this country has probably ever known, should be the occasion chosen for what I can only call a repudiation of the obligations under which this country is placed with regard to the extinction of the Debt is, I confess, one of the most serious, and I will call it one of the most disastrous proposals which has ever been made."
  That was the view of Sir William Harcourt, a man of no mean capacity when finance questions were at stake. Then

  695
  there was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Sir Hudson Kearley); he also objected to this alteration of the Sinking Fund. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in his place. He said:—
  "I rise to protest against tampering with the Sinking Fund which the Government propose. It seems to me that the supporters of the Government are driven to desperate straits when the hon. member for Central Sheffield has to rise in his place and contrast the bilking of the Bill with the worst things that have happened in the past."
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but perhaps his colleague will ask him how he now comes to support the "bilking of the Bill." Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire acknowledges the very high reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says it was only reasonable to expect that something better might be brought forward than this tampering with the Sinking Fund. He further said:—
  "I think, further, it is a very dangerous innovation indeed to reduce the amount set apart for this particular task in proportion as the debt itself is reduced. On that principle how can you ever extinguish a debt?"
  Then there, is the Noble Lord who was once Sir Samuel Montagu. I have seen in the paper a letter from Lord Swathling, in which he said that this was the best Democratic Budget he had ever seen, and he ventured to disagree with the eminent bankers in the City. Lord Swathling said:—
  "I am absolutely astonished that so eminent a financier as the right hon. gentleman should have taken refuge in such means as these, which can only be justified in times of war or when we have incurred a very heavy permanent expenditure."
  I have already pointed out that the condition of our National Debt at the present moment is far worse than it was then, and the result, which was so strongly objected to by every hon. Member whose opinion I have quoted, is very much worse now. The reduction of the Sinking Fund, which was proposed by Lord St. Aldwyn, was to reduce it from £25,000,000 to £23,000,000, and that left £5,816,000 as a balance available for the extinction of the debt. At the present moment, supposing the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are acquiesced in, the balance left for the cancellation of debt will be £6,886,000, that is to say, in round figures £1,000,000 higher than it was then. When Lord St. Aldwyn reduced this sum to £23,000,000, within three years of that time the interest on Consols was going to be reduced from 2¾ to 2½ per cent., and that brought a further increase to the Sinking Fund of
  696
  £1,300,000, so that the reduction left the same amount available for the reduction of debt as will be available under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends hailed that opportunity to express their abhorrence of the proposal made by Lord St. Aldwyn. There was no word strong enough to express their astonishment at the bad finance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who proposed the reduction of the Sinking Fund on that occasion. Now, when the national finances are far worse than they were then, when the National Debt is larger, when the National expenditure is larger, when the country is not so prosperous as it was then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes this opportunity to reduce the Sinking Fund. Moreover, we do not know what the extent of new expenditure may be, and that at a time when the old Sinking Fund is to be abolished. The right hon. Gentleman says—[A cry of "Divide" from the Ministerial benches] I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman does not like the mistakes of his party being exposed.
  An HON. MEMBERon the Ministerial Side: Will the hon. Baronet say how he voted on that occasion?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I voted in favour of Lord St. Aldwyn's proposal. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen laugh. I will go further, and say that I made a speech in favour of it, and I have got the speech here. I voted for Lord St. Aldwyn's reduction because the National Debt was £80,000,000 smaller than it is now, the National expenditure £50,000,000 less than now, while we were not in the position of having to find £80,000,000 for the purchase of Irish land. Therefore, I say that the circumstances on that occasion were totally different from what they are now. I said then, and I say now, that the National Debt should be reduced. We had then an economical Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not dream dreams or thought of making roads and forests. I do not want to go into the question of the old Sinking Fund. We shall have an opportunity of doing that later on. But may I say that while we are reducing the new Sinking Fund in this way to abolish the old Sinking Fund, is, to my mind, the worst financial project ever put forward by any Finance Minister in recent years. I think that is the view held by every responsible financial authority in the City of London and elsewhere, and when the

  697
  time comes I shall be prepared to justify it. We must not put temptation in the way of right hon. Gentlemen opposite; if you give them a chance of getting money you may be quite certain they will spend it. I read with great interest Lord St. Aldwyn's speech, in which he advocated economy, and ever since that time I have not known one Chancellor of the Exchequer who has not advocated economy, except the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do say that when we have arrived at so enormous an expenditure as obtains to-day it is absolutely suicidal to suspend or decrease in any way the provision for the redemption of debt.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend was unable to resist the temptation of recalling to the memory of right hon. Gentlemen opposite words uttered a few short years ago on this very question. Though, as my hon. Friend said, there have been many alterations for the worse in our circumstances since the time when Lord St. Aldwyn carried out his operation, I am precluded from adopting the attitude of my hon. Friend and from taking up the position that under no circumstances should the Sinking Fund be touched at the present time by the support I then gave to Lord St. Aldwyn's scheme. As to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal regarding the old Sinking Fund, I take it that that is not before us at the present moment. We are now dealing only with the new Sinking Fund. I am, however, sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have touched it at all, as there are many reasons in the circumstances of to-day which make it highly desirable and opportune that we should reduce our debt as rapidly as possible. But I am not surprised, in view of his financial necessities, that the right hon. Gentleman should have done it. Indeed, so far from being surprised, I am rather astonished that he has limited the operation as he has done. I say no more now. I have merely expressed my personal opinion, which, of course, is not binding on my hon. and right hon. Friends. But I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. In his Budget statement he incidentally mentioned that he had carried forward from last year to this year something like seven millions of Sinking Fund money. We have had no explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of this very, unusual proceeding. It may be perfectly proper, of course,
  698
  and I accept the passing phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he said that the condition of affairs did not make it expedient to expend money in the reduction of debt in the last half of last year. That is a statement I am unable to understand. A year ago I think something less than, or about, a million was unexpended at the close of the financial year, and I can well understand that in any year it may be possibly proper and economical not to spend the whole of it within the year, and that there should be a latitude allowed. But Consols last year—last autumn—surely were low enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have expected that he was going to drive them lower still. Why did he think he would have the opportunity of laying out his money this year better than he had in the closing months of last year? He has declined to tell us, on grounds which may be good, at what price he has been purchasing Consols since the close of the last financial year, but I will say that he cannot be buying, on the average, cheaper after the last financial year than he could have bought during the last financial year. Therefore, the question I wish to put to him is: What was the reason for carrying forward this very unusual sum, and what were the circumstances which rendered it inexpedient to expend the money last year?
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: I cannot let this occasion pass without some protest as to this interference with the Sinking Fund, and I must say I am surprised that not a single Member during the day has risen from the other side to protest against it. We have the hon. Member for Brighton who speaks with regard to the Sinking Fund, and we have the Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee, but I do not see him here, although he has very strong views about the Sinking Fund with regard to municipal enterprise. When it comes to national finance we do not hear a word from those benches opposite with regard to purity of finance and non-interference with the Sinking Fund. The first question we have to ask with regard to the Sinking Fund is, what are the assets of the nation to represent 700 millions of debt? If there are assets, productive assets, real assets to represent that amount, there is something to be said for the interference with the Sinking Fund. In municipal matters we live under the strictest surveillance of the President of the Local Government Board, and I am sorry he is not here to offer his opinion.

  699
  If we wish to prolong the period of the Sinking Fund from 20 to 40 years, or from 40 to 80 years, the right hon. Gentleman stands up and strenuously objects to any interference with the sacred character of that fund, and he overrides his colleagues. I heartily approve of his action, and I wish they had the same stamina. In municipal matters we have assets which represent our debts—water, gas, electric supply, and tramway works, but the debt of the nation is represented by nothing. There are a certain amount of ships. What do they represent? There are offices in Whitehall, but what do they represent in reference to the 700 millions? Little or nothing. It will take us 50 years at compound interest to wipe off the debt by means of this reduced Sinking Fund, and for that period we shall have it hanging round our necks. No one in his own private business would adopt this extraordinarily foolish proposal of dealing with this Sinking Fund. We have £700,000,000 of debt with no assets to represent it, and yet we are reducing our Sinking Fund from ten to seven millions. We were told to-day that our capital is the additional efficiency produced by our education and sanitary arrangements. I suppose that is the capital which now represents £700,000,000 of debt. This trifling with Imperial Sinking Funds and Imperial Debt is a most serious matter. We have no right to stand up and tell our municipal brothers that they are to be strict in writing off their debt when we, for the sake of saving our pockets, do this which is most injurious to the credit of the nation. It is necessary to make a protest against the action of the Government, and we ought most certainly to divide against it. It is not only the debt, but the guarantees which make that £700,000,000 so much more—guarantees for Irish land, for local land stocks, and all the moral guarantees which relate to other branches of the nation.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Anyone listening to the hon. Member might imagine that we were responsible for increasing the National Debt, and that it had gone up by £80,000,000 since the last time the Sinking Fund was reduced, because we had been piling up debt. No one listening to him would have imagined that during the last three years we have been paying off £40,000,000 of the debt. The ferocity of the hon. Member's denunciation is five or six years out of date, and it is directed to
  700
  the wrong party. All that we can be held responsible for is that we are doing our best to pay off the debt contracted by others. When you come to the actual proposal before the House I would ask what is it? The hon. Baronet in the course of his lengthy observations really only came to the point of comparison with the present proposal, and that of Lord St. Aldwyn, when it was reluctantly extracted from him by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. His proposal was to reduce the amount from £25,000,000 to £23,000,000. My proposal is to reduce it from £28,000,000 to £25,000,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The amount which will be left in the end under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme for the redemption of debt is practically the same as was left under Lord St. Aldwyn's proposal.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that the purchasing power of the £7,000,000 which I am setting aside is considerably more than the purchasing power of £5,500,000. By means of this £7,000,000, which I am setting aside, a greater reduction of debt will be arranged than by Lord St. Aldwyn's proposal, and yet that is a proposal which the hon. Baronet supported not merely by his vote, but by the great power of his speech, speaking as a very great financial authority.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, I did not say so.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, he supported it. The proposal I am making here is very much better than Lord St. Aldwyn's, so far as the reduction of debt is concerned, and yet the hon. Baronet opposes it with all the power of his invective. In addition to what I have pointed out, he forgets to show that when Lord St. Aldwyn made his proposal there was no increase in the general taxation of the country. Here there is an increase amounting to £16,000,000 to the general charges, and the whole point is this—do hon. Gentlemen opposite prefer an additional £3,000,000 of taxes, for that is what it really means? (An HON. MEMBER: "Tariff Reform.") At least there is one Gentleman courageous enough, having fixed himself in the remotest corner of the benches opposite, and far enough removed from all the discipline of the party, to state what he and his friends want. He has suggested what we have been asking them to state all along. At any rate, it is perfectly clear that we are

  701
  not going to make this reduction of £3,000,000 without high authority. Lord Cromer is a great financial authority. I suppose the hon. Baronet will acknowledge that. He made a speech some time ago to a Chamber of Commerce, in which he suggested, not that £3,000,000 but £4,000,000 is the proper sum for the reduction of debt. That is the authority I have for £4,000,000. We, on the other hand, take the lower figure, and hon. Gentlemen opposite profess to be astonished that we are only reducing the fund by £3,000,000. I think that was the general feeling of the City, with due respect to the hon. Baronet. We rather disappointed them on the right side, and I think that that was responsible, in spite of all the suggestions to the contrary, very largely for the fact that Consols did go up; because the City expected a much larger reduction of the Sinking Fund than we proposed, and I think that no hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman opposite, if placed in my position and obliged to raise £16,000,000 of money, would have dreamt under those conditions of imposing an additional taxation of £3,000,000 rather than taking this £3,000,000 off the Sinking Fund. I am putting it with all sincerity to hon. Members opposite. I think in their hearts they will say that we have acted very moderately as far as this particular proposition is concerned. I do not think we would be justified in coming in and asking for an additional taxation of two or three millions. I agree that the taxes seem to be heavy as they are, and if I was to put on this additional sum they would seem much larger. As everyone who has had
  experience of raising new taxation knows, even an additional £1,000,000 very often means the difference between what appears to be fairly reasonable and what appears to be an oppressive tax. I would like the Noble Lord to suggest to me what tax he would propose to put the million on, that would be a much better way of getting out of the difficulty than the proposed reduction of the Sinking Fund? The right hon. Gentleman has asked me about the retention of this money. The real reason is we. were buying war loan. It is to be redeemed next year at par. We were paying 101 or 102 for what we could get at par, and what we would have to buy at par in 1910. Therefore, as we get nearer 1910, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, these things drop to something nearer par because everyone knows perfectly well that they can be bought out in 1910 at par, and, therefore, they would not be prepared to put the same figure on it as at an earlier period. That is the real explanation. There is no change in the buying. In spite of what has been said about rigging the market, the right hon. Gentleman will find when he gets the real figures that there has been no change in the method of buying at all. He knows perfectly well, in considering things of that sort, when buying you make your money go as far as you possibly can.
  Motion made and Question put: "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue (including Excise)."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 50.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mond, A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montgomery, H. G

  Seddon, J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Shackleton, David James

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Simon, John Alisebrook

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nicholls, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stead man, W. C.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jones, Leit (Appleby)

  Parker, Jamas (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Laldlaw, Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Tomkinson, James

  Lambert, George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Verncy, F. W.

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton)

  Waring, Walter

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Maclean, Donald

  Robinson, S.

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Macnaman, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leices.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

  Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Joseph Pease and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

  Middlebrook, William

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

  Division No. 125.]

  AYES.

  [11.45 P.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chance, Frederick William

  Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Agnew, George William

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Alnsworth, John Stirllng

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall).

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Erskine, David C.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beale, W. P.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gill, A. H.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glover, Thomas

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crean, Eugene

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Boland, John

  Crooks, William

  Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

  Dobson, Thomas W.

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Duckworth, Sir James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  NOES.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mcore, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Oddy, John James

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gordon, J.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Stafi'sh.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Younger. George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Keswick, William

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Frederick Banbury and Mr. Leverton

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Harris.

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

TRADE BOARDS [EXPENSES].

  CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
  [MR. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of Trade Boards for certain Trades."—[Mr. Churchill.]
  Sir ALEXANDER ACLAND-HOOD: I do not object to the Committee being passed, but I ask that we should have an opportunity for discussion on the Report of the Committee to discuss certain matters. Our reason for not objecting tonight is that if we did the progress of the Bill would be delayed, and we do not desire that it should.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The Bill was supported

  705
  so largely by Members of all parties in the House, and there are so few points of controversy or difficulty, that I felt I might ask for some hope that the proceedings in Committee would not be delayed. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen wish to have an opportunity to discuss the Resolution, the Government is in their hands, and if they allow this stage to pass I will take an opportunity of expressing their views.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 24th May.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Sir R. Whittington's Charity Bill,
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Bridgend (Hope English Baptist Chapel, etc.) Charity Bill,
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Lord BALCARRES: These Bills are printed at the public expense, and presented in the same way as any important public Bill or a Bill introduced by a private Member, and the whole expense incidental to them is borne by the taxpayers at large. I do not take any objection to these Bills, but under these circumstances I presume they will be treated, when passed, as ordinary statutes of the realm.
  Mr. SOARES: I think the Noble Lord was satisfied with the way in which similar Bills were treated last year. They were printed and numbered in the ordinary way. If he will take the assurance I will see that these Bills are treated in the same way.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will they have the current numbers in proper order?
  Mr. SOARES: I am not quite sure about that, but I think the Noble Lord was satisfied last year.
  John Marshall's Charity Bill,
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Lichfield and Longdon Congregational Chapels and Trust Property Charity Bill,
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Dewsbury and Batley Congregational Chapel Charities Bill,
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Wortley Congregational Chapel Charity Bill,
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Two minutes before Twelve o'clock