Commons Sitting of 25 April 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Mansfield Railway Bill [Lords].
Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords].
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
Nottingham Corporation Bill [Lords].
Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords].
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords].
Reading and District Electric Supply Bill [Lords].
London Electric Railway Amalgamation Bill [Lords].
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill [Lords].
Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Garnant Gas Bill [Lords].
Thorne and District Water Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the first reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
Bankers Guarantee and Trust Fund Incorporation Bill [Lords] (King's consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Great Western Railway (General Powers)
Bill (King's consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Worksop Urban District Council Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Junction Railway Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
City of London (Tithes and Rates) Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Message from the Lords,
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating the Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Company, and authorising them to construct railways and works in the county of Surrey; and for other purposes." (Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords].)
Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Warden's Divorce Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill—
Second Reading deferred till to-morrow.
Port of London (Port Rates on Goods) Provisional Order Bill.
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Port of London Act, 1908, relating to the Maximum Port Rates on Goods which may be levied by the Port of London Authority," presented by Mr. SYDNEY BTJXTOX. (Read the first time; to be refered to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.)
Norwich Charities (No. 2) Bill,—reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration to-morrow.

COUNTY COUNCILS (EDUCATION RATES).
Return ordered "by the County Council of each administrative county in England and Wales, except London, (a) of the rate in the pound levied for Elementary Education over the whole of each administrative county; (b) of particulars of the amounts received during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1910, from Rates raised under Section 18 (1) (c) and (d) of The Education Act, 1902, over parts only of the area under the council for purposes of Elementary Education; (c) of particulars as to the practice of apportioning one-half or three-fourths of the cost in the improvement or provision of provided schools as between the county and the parish or parishes immediately concerned; and (d) of the rate in the pound levied for Higher Education."— [Mr. Clough.]
EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
Address for Return "of the net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1898–9 to 1908–9."—[Mr. Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Anglo-German Financial Agreement (1898).
  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was a fact that His Britannic Majesty's Government was a consulted and consenting party to the Anglo-German Financial Agreement of 1898, as included in the Blue Book, No. 1, of 1899; and whether the same financial agreement was formally and specifically recognised in the subsequent Anglo-Russian Convention which embodied the principle of spheres of influence regarding railway concessions in China?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have explained the nature of this agreement in my reply to a previous question by the Noble Lord on the 13th instant. His Majesty's Government were consulted and assented to the agreement between the two financial groups concerned, but it never became an agreement between the two Governments. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that the Government do recognise the agreement as binding?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As between the two financial elements the Government approve of the agreement.
  Earl WINTERTON: Are the Government prepared to support the English group of financiers in getting the agreement carried out?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That certainly must depend upon circumstances. It is not an agreement which is binding upon the German Government.

  British Imports into Japan.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the systematic under-valuation of goods imported into Japan by which British traders who refuse to lend themselves to this practice are seriously prejudiced; and what steps he proposed to take to deal with the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: This question has been brought to my notice principally in connection with the consumption tax on imported textiles, and His Majesty's Government some time ago invited the Japanese Government to consider whether they could not see their way to substitute specific consumption duties for duties on an ad valorem basis. At the time the Japanese Government were not prepared to adopt this suggestion; they, however, promised to consider it and the matter will not be lost sight of. I understand that in the new Japanese Customs Tariff it is proposed in many cases to replace the existing ad valorem by specific duties.

  Japanese Tariff.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the new Japanese tariff which has passed the House of Representatives and will come into operation next year; and, seeing the prohibitive character of many of the new duties, especially affecting Lancashire and Yorkshire goods, what representations he proposes to make to secure fair treatment for British trade?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second it is not possible to say at present what
  6
  representations it may be ultimately found necessary to address to the Japanese Government pending a consideration of the matter by the Board of Trade, who are in communication with the Chambers of Commerce on the subject, and will consult their Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence with regard to it when they learn the views of the Chambers.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Have the Board of Trade taken into consideration the possibility of putting a tax upon the cheap Japanese goods now sent into the Midlands and underselling British goods?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am quite unable to say what course the Board of Trade would take.
  Mr. PETO: In view of the Home Secretary's declaration as to retaliation by the French Government, does the Government propose to impose any duties on Japanese silk and porcelain?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not see how that arises out of the question.

  Mail Service to Mombasa.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he can ascertain what subsidy is paid by the French and German Governments for the mail service from Marseilles to Mombasa; and whether, in view of the fact that owing to such subsidies the entire commerce of East Africa and Uganda is practically confined to Marseilles and Hamburg, he will consider if an adequate subsidy could be paid to a British service?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that there is a direct loss to the Post Office of£7,200 a year by the contract for the conveyance of mails from Aden to Mombasa, and that the said service is of no value for either passengers or for trade, he will take into consideration the desirability of terminating the contract, with a view to secure a service that will be of some advantage to the commerce of East Africa?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In addition to indirect financial contributions of which I have no means of ascertaining the amounts, subsidies of£67,000 and£43,000 are paid by the German and French Governments, respectively, on account of African mail services, which include calls at East African ports, but it is not possible

  7
  to say what proportions of the subsidies are on account of these calls. From Returns for the year 1908–9 it appears that the tonnages of German, British and French shipping entering and clearing from the British East African ports are in the ratio of 11, 5 and 2. I am not, however, in a position to state the proportion of the trade to and from these ports that is carried in British and foreign bottoms. I have been in consultation on the subject of steamship services to East Africa with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who communicated with the Governor of the East African Protectorate in the matter. The circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that though the present subsidy for the service between Aden and Zanzibar has a combined trade and postal justification, there are no sufficient grounds for the payment of a large subsidy for a mail service direct from England to the ports in question.
  Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that a well-known line of steamers is running up from South Africa as far as Mombasa, will the Government take the matter into consideration?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand that the Union Line does not at present contemplate any extension of the service from Mombasa back to England by the Suez route.
  Mr. REES: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the interests of Nyasaland are also involved in this question, and that Chinde should be included in the all-East Coast service to be secured by a suitable subsidy?
  Mr HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that the British India Line are now receiving£7,200 above the value of the postal service they perform.
  Earl WINTERTON: What is the nature of the indirect further contribution to
  which the right hon. Gentleman refers?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that. There are certain payments given by Continental governments to these shipping companies, which are still under their flag, and these payments do not correspond to any subsidies given in this country.

  Newspaper Telegraphists (Parliamentary Recess).
  Mr. STRAUSSasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the withdrawal
  8
  of the newspaper telegraphists at the beginning of a Parliamentary recess is a cause of considerable inconvenience to the newspapers concerned; and if he can see his way to issue instructions that these telegraphists whose term concludes during a Parliamentary recess shall continue to work till after Parliament is prorogued?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave a fortnight ago to the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs.

  Bangor (County Down) Post Office.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Bangor, county Down, being a seaside resort, the cost of living there is higher than at Knock, county Down, where the maximum pay of postmen is 27s. per week, whereas at Bangor it is only 23s.; and whether, in view of the difference in pay at these offices, he will cause inquiry to be made at Bangor with a view to its re-classification?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Careful consideration was given to all the circumstances before the classification of Bangor was decided, and I regret that I can find no sufficient reason for altering the decision. The postmen at Bangor benefited under the Parliamentary Committee Revision by an increase of 1s. a week in their maximum pay. Knock was placed in Class 2 because it is situated within the municipal town boundary of Belfast, with which town it is closely connected. Belfast is in Class 1.

  Suffolk Postal Facilities (Rushmere).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked if a vacancy is about to occur on the Rush-mere to Kesgrave, Suffolk, rural postman's walk; whether it is contemplated to break up this established post into two or more unestablished duties to be performed by part-time unestablished persons; and, if so, will he take steps to retain the established character of this post?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The post in question is vacant. In order to accelerate the morning delivery, respecting which complaint has been made, bicycle working has been introduced both on the Ipswich to Rushmere post and on the post in question, Rushmere to Kesgrave. The latter duty is thereby reduced to four hours fifteen minutes a day, which is far short of the minimum qualification for an established post. It will, therefore, be

  9
  necessary to employ one auxiliary for the present—not two, as the hon. Member suggests.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mrs. Bridget Boland, of Woodhill, county Sligo, Tubbercurry sub-committee, was in receipt of a pension of 5s. per week ever since the Act came into operation up to 10th March last, when it was stopped on appeal by the local pension officer on the ground that she was not the required age; whether Mrs. Boland has put in a fresh claim, accompanied by a certificate from the deputy-keeper, Public Record Office, showing that the claimant was two years and two months in 1841; and, if so, whether she will now be placed on the list and the amount of which she was deprived be paid her?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will postpone his question. I have not yet obtained the information he requires.
  Mr. O'DOWD: As the House will shortly adjourn, I shall not have an opportunity of obtaining the information.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite recognise that difficulty, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the facts. I will endeavour to do so as soon as I get the information from Ireland.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate it to me?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will be very glad to do so.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether many old age pensioners in Ireland have been deprived of their pensions on appeals based on the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851; whether, on investigation at the Public Record Office, Dublin, these Returns have in many cases been found to be wholly erroneous, in consequence of which these pensions have been restored; and, if so, whether, seeing that under unreliable official returns these pensioners have been unjustly deprived of their pensions and compelled, in many cases under threat of prosecution, to refund sums properly their own, steps will be taken to have such sums repaid to them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A considerable number of pensions have been withdrawn on appeals based on the Census Returns.
  10
  With reference to the second paragraph of the question, while acknowledging that discrepancies have been found in the Census Returns, I am not prepared to admit that they are on the whole unreliable as a test of age in the case of claimants under the Old Age Pensions Act. As a matter of fact, the Returns have been the only means of enabling a large number of persons to establish their right to pensions. If there are any cases in which pensions have been withdrawn upon the evidence of Census Returns which can can be shown to be incorrect, I shall be prepared to consider the suggestion made in the latter part of the question.

  Government Officials (Return).
  Mr. LLOYDasked when the Return relating to Government officials, ordered on 10th March, will be presented to Parliament?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Return is in the press, and will be issued in a week or ten days.

  Death Duties.
  Mr. GEORGE FABERasked what is the amount of capital which has come under the review of the Inland Revenue authorities for the purpose of Death Duties during each of the last ten years? I should point out, before the right hon. Gentleman answers, that in the question on the Paper it is printed two years; it should be ten years. I sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter giving him notice of the correction.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not get the letter until this morning, and I have only got an answer relating to the last two years. I shall endeavour to obtain the information, but if the hon. Gentleman likes I can give him the figures for the two years.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: I would rather have all the figures together.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to circulate it in the Papers?
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Yes.

  Ordnance Survey Employés.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the terms of reference to the proposed committee of inquiry into the grievance of theemployé of the

  11
  Ordnance Survey, such a matter as the retirement of the labourers employed "by that body who are compulsorily retired at the age of sixty can be brought forward with a view of ascertaining whether a scheme of pension can be brought about, either by contribution or otherwise, and thus relieve these men from the hardship of being thrown on the world without being able, through no fault of their own, to provide for themselves or their families in their old age; and whether the question of the transference of the Irish section of the Ordnance Survey to the control of the Irish Agricultural Department will be included in the said terms of referenced?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The subjects to which my hon. Friend refers are not such as could appropriately be considered by the committee which is in contemplation.

  Purchase of Army Remounts.
  Mr. LLEWELYNasked how many copies of the pamphlet, issued by the Board in January, 1909, containing photographic illustrations and a full description of each of the types of horses required for remount purposes in the Army, were distributed in Wales; and through what channels were these pamphlets distributed?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The pamphlet was sent direct by the Board to every occupier of an agricultural holding in Great Britain, who had returned horses as being in his possession on 4th June. 1908. No record was kept of the number despatched to different parts of the country.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the Department inform the breeders of the types of horses needed and the prices that the War Office is prepared to give for three and four-year old horses of the description required?
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In view of the inquiries directed to the hon. Gentleman from Members in all quarters of the House representing every part of the United Kingdom, cannot the hon. Gentleman make known throughout the country what types of horses are required for these purposes and the prices?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have already informed the hon. Member that pamphlets containing the information have already been despatched to every occupier who has made a return of horses on his holding.
  An HON. MEMBER: Are those pamphlets still available?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that copies of the pamphlet are circulated in the country districts of Ireland?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The matter has reference to the Board of Agriculture for Great Britain, and not to the Board of Agriculture in Ireland.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Department in Ireland as* to the circulation of these pamphlets?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland to this matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: If the hon. Gentleman desires it, but I should have thought it was a matter for the Chief Secretary.

  Blight of Apple Trees.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Board of Agriculture's attention has been called to the serious increase in the infestation of apple trees by American blight, particularly in the West and South of England, and the consequent prevalence of canker even among newly-planted trees; and whether the Board will take steps to prevent owners and occupiers of infested orchards and gardens from inflicting injury and loss upon their neighbours, by compelling them to cut down and burn all infested trees which, after due warning, have not been effectively treated with a view to the removal of this wind-carried pest?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The Board are aware of the prevalence of this pest throughout Great Britain, and a leaflet on the subject has been widely distributed. I shall be happy to send the hon. Member a copy of it, together with two other leaflets dealing with the case of orchards. The Board hope that the spread of education among fruit growers and the facilities for washing fruit trees now available will result in a diminution of the various pests affecting neglected orchards without recourse being necessary to the extreme measures of coercion suggested, which the Board are not at present prepared to adopt.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is just those who do not read those leaflets which come from the Board of Agriculture who are the greatest sinners in this matter and are causing the pest to spread to the orchards of their neighbours?

  Admiralty Yacht Guests.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, during the last two years, an occasion has ever arisen when the number of guests on board the Admiralty yacht was so great that accommodation could not be found for one of the Lords of the Admiralty?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): I am not aware of the occasion referred to by the hon. Member. It has, however, been the custom on such occasions, as the review of the Fleet at Spithead, to detail one or more cabins as cloak-rooms for the official guests of the Board. These cabins become available for the Board on the guests leaving.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the amount of Appropriation in Aid in each of the last four years in respect of sums paid for guests entertained on board the Admiralty yacht?
  Mr. McKENNA: As I informed the hon. Gentleman in reply to a supplementary question on 6th April, I do not think it is desirable to make such a statement.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an opportunity of thanking him, on behalf of the nation, for his generosity?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I should regard it as most undesirable.
  Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why it is undesirable?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is purely a personal matter. I am not speaking for myself en this matter. My predecessors in office have always adopted t*he same course in personal matters.
  Lord BALCARRES: Is not this an Appropriation in Aid out of the National Funds?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; as I am informed it is purely a voluntary payment. The practice has been adopted by all First Lords of the Admiralty ever since the existing yacht was built. I am informed
  14
  that there is no claim to be made on this subject, but my predecessors have always regarded it as desirable that payment should be made in respect of guests who are entertained on board the Admiralty yacht.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there is any limit to the number of guests?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know the number of guests on any particular day or any particular time I should be very happy to inform him.

  German Armoured Cruiser "Blucher."
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any official information as to the proposed sale of the German armoured cruiser "Blucher" to the Turkish Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no official information on the subject.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give unofficially information or must he always base his replies to questions on official information?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be undesirable for me to state on the authority of the Admiralty information which was not official.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: In view of the fact that this affects the balance of naval power, will the right hon. Gentleman give the information to the House at as early a date as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: As soon as I have official information on the subject I shall be very happy to give it to the House, but, as anybody will see, the balance of power would be affected favourably to this country, and therefore the matter has not the same importance.

  "Neptune" and "Indefatigable" (Construction).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked when it is anticipated that the "Neptune" and "Indefatigable" will be completed; and whether it is expected that delays are likely to extend their construction beyond the two years' limit?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is January and February next respectively. With regard to the second part, so far as can be seen at present, such delays are not expected.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of preventing unanticipated delays such as kept back the "Collingwood" and "St. Vincent" this year?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to anticipate that which cannot be anticipated?

  Devonport Dockyard.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether new construction in machinery was undertaken in Devonport Dockyard; if not, would he explain why; whether the work of refitting a repairing ship was always done in the scheduled time, and in cases where delay had taken place was that frequently due to insufficiency in the number of workmen available; if not, would he state to what cause he attributed the delay; was emergency work frequent; and was the present working staff sufficient to cope with the general routine work of the yard?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The reason asked for in the second part is that the engines and boilers required for the large cruisers and battleships built at Devonport could not be manufactured with the present resources of the yard in time to complete these vessels in two years from the date of laying down. As regards the third part of the question, if, during progress of work, the repairs prove more extensive than expected, there may then be some delay in completion, or, in other words, had the full extent of the requisite repairs been known, a later date for completion would have been taken. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative, and to the fifth in the affirmative.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the answer to the fifth part of the question is in the affirmative, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why they are constantly taking on men at Devonport Dockyard and sending men away?
  Mr. McKENNA: We can never at any moment be absolutely sure what amount of repairs will be requisite during the year, and we have to take on men according to the requirements of the service.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the working staff was sufficient to cope with the general routine work—is that so?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is so.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How does he reconcile the last answer with the answer he gave to the former question?
  Mr. McKENNA: The general routine work is a certain quantity which we can anticipate. There may be for short periods an excess of that amount or deficiency of that amount, when we have to take in view men and dismiss other men, according to the conditions of the work, which could not be regarded as included in the general ordinary work of the yard.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of that reply—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman might be satisfied. He has had four very full answers.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked how many temporary hands are now employed in the works department at Devonport Dockyard; how many have been so employed for a continuous period of fifteen years; how many for twenty years and over; whether he will consider the advisability of extending to men who have been employed continuously in the works department for a long period of years the same privileges as to establishment as are extended to workmen in other departments in the yard; and, if not, will he explain on what ground he justifies a distinction being made?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of temporary hands now employed in the works department at Devonport Dockyard is 1,051, of whom fifty-seven have been employed continuously for fifteen years, and thirty-six for twenty years and over. With regard to the last part- of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him in reply to a similar question on the 13th of this month.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the fifty-seven and thirty-seven men who have been working for fifteen and twenty years respectively should be regarded as temporary men; and whether it would be possible to have them established?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already fully explained to the hon. Member that the system of working in the works department does not properly permit of the establishment system being introduced. The works department endeavours so far as is possible to re-engage the same men

  17
  as they have employed before. The result is that in individual cases certain men are employed for a considerable number of years. I do not understand the hon. Member to wish the works department to dismiss those old workmen.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Arising out of that answer—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really have some regard to the large number of questions on the Paper.

  Royal Dockyards (Wages).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could see his way to approximate more closely the wages of skilled labourers in the royal dockyards to the wages of skilled labourers doing similar work for private firms; whether, in view of the discrepancy at present existing, he would consider whether it would promote efficiency in the yards if the minimum rate of pay for day work for hired skilled labourers was raised from 22s. to 26s. per week and the maximum from 28s. to 30s. per week; whether he was aware that the present rate of pay for ordinary labourers at the royal dockyards is 21s. per week, whereas for similar work at Cardiff, Leeds, Leicester, and London, public bodies pay their ordinary labourers 25s., 26s., 28s. 3d., and 29s. 3d., respectively; and whether he would consider the advisability of raising the weekly pay for established ordinary labourers to 23s. 6d. per week, and of hired ordinary labourers to 24s. per week?
  Mr. McKENNA: The question of the rates of pay of skilled labourers and labourers employed in His Majesty's dockyards has recently been under consideration in connection with petitions received from the workmen, and in regard to which members of the Board of Admiralty received deputations of the workmen at interviews at the several dockyards. The replies to the various requests made by the workmen are now being prepared and will be promulgated to the workmen shortly; in the meantime it is not considered expedient to discuss the arguments urged in support of the requests or to forestall the replies.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether in addition to improving the position of the skilled labourers first and second grade storehousemen and sawyers at Devonport Dockyard, he will do something for the log rollers of that establishment?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he would consider the advisability of removing the present limited classification in respect to skilled labourers in the Royal dockyards and arranging for competent workmen (both established and hired) to rise to the maximum rates of pay by increments, granted annually, of 1s. per week; and whether, in view of the small number of skilled labourers borne on the establishment and to the substitution of other hands when filling vacancies caused by retirement, he would cause all vacancies to be filled by men of the same class as those creating the vacancies?
  Mr. McKENNA: Both these subjects have been raised by the workmen concerned in their petitions to the Admiralty, to which replies are now being prepared. It is not deemed expedient to anticipate the replies to the workmen.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether he will explain why, when a first-grade storehouse man vacates his post, a second-grade storehouse man is often appointed to that post without necessarily receiving any rise in pay?
  Mr. McKENNA: As stated in reply to the hon. Member on the 21st of this month, the growth and development of the supply services necessitates reallocation of the charges from time to time as their importance increases or diminishes, and a possible consequent change of duties as between the two grades. I have nothing to add to that.
  Sir C. KINLOCH COOKE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has answered the point which I put to him, namely, whether he will explain why when a first-grade storehouse man vacates his-post, a second-grade storehouse man is often appointed to the post without necessarily receiving any rise in pay? That is what I want answered.
  Mr. McKENNA: When a post which was held by a first-grade storehouse man, in consequence of the reduction of the number of stores in charge becomes a post suitable for a second-grade storeman, I have explained very fully to the hon. Member that in such a case as that, when the first grade storehouse post is diminished and reduced in importance, and a second-grade storehouse man succeeds the first, there would not be necessarily any increase of pay to the second-grade storehouse man.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that provision is made in the Naval Estimates for 1910–11 for an establishment of 5,928 men in the Royal dockyards, and no more, he will say whether any negotiations have passed between the Admiralty and the Treasury on the question of increasing the establishment since that number was settled; whether the total number now authorised is the same as the number stated in the Naval Estimates, and, if not, what is the number now authorised; and whether Treasury approval had been received to the reopening of the establishment before the day of the election at Devonport last January?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty has been for some time past in communication with the Treasury on the question of resuming the establishment for workmen. As a result of that correspondence, it has been decided to resume the establishment, but as to what the revised total number of established places is to be, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 18th April. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  H.M. Ships "Shearwater" and "Algerine."
  Mr. HUNTasked how many bluejackets are carried by the "Shearwater," and how many by the "Algerine;" what is the tonnage of each ship and the nominal speed; and what is the size and number of guns carried by each?
  Mr. McKENNA: The first part of the question concerns complements, and the information is confidential. The other figures asked for are: "Algerine," 1,050 tons displacement, 12.9 knots speed; "Shearwater," 980 tons displacement, 13.4 knots speed. The "Algerine" carries six 4-inch guns and four 3-pounders; the "Shearwater" carries four 4-inch guns and four 3-pounders.

  Naval Protection (American Pacific Coast).
  Mr. HUNTasked whether there are any British warships, except the sloops "Algerine" and "Shearwater," stationed between the Behring Straits and the most southern extremity of the whole of the American Continent for the protection either of British commerce at sea or of the lives and property of British subjects on shore?
  Mr. McKENNA: No other vessels are stationed there permanently, but the Pacific coast of America is visited occasionally when thought necessary by ships from the China or Australian stations.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask how long it would take to put first-class cruisers which would provide adequate protection for British subjects in time of trouble in these waters?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends where the first-class cruisers found themselves at the moment.
  Sir G. PARKER: Suppose they were in the China station or had to be sent from the Mediterranean or Atlantic?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member would give me notice of that question I could measure the distancs.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers one of the occasions has now arisen for him to consider it desirable to transfer some of those ships from Chinese waters?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty will be advised on the point by the Foreign Office, and any request made to the Admiralty by the Foreign Office will be, I can assure the hon. Members, complied with.

  Prison Commission (Medical Member).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKhad given notice of the following Question (No. 31 on the Paper): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when the place on the Prison Commission, recently rendered vacant by the retirement of Dr. Donkin, was filled, regard was had to the official Minute which was placed on record in the Home Office, on the undertaking of the First Lord of the Treasury and of the Home Secretary when the Prisons Act of 1898 was under discussion, and at the urgent request of Members of the present Government, to the effect that one of the Prison Commissioners should, if possible, be a medical man; and why, in view of the Minute so placed on record by their own demand, the vacancy was filled by the gentleman who acted as private secretary to the late Home Secretary?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: As this subject was discussed on Friday last, and such information as could be given was given, I do not propose to ask the question.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): As the question contains some statements which are inaccurate, perhaps I might be permitted to read the answer.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had been present during the discussion on Friday? I have not put the question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman put the question?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: No.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Then there is no answer.
  Subsequently—
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, submit to you a point of Order with reference to question No. 31 on to-day's Order Paper, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow University (Sir Henry Craik), but which was not asked by the hon. Member, and which, having regard to your ruling, could not be answered. May I, with great respect, submit to you the footnote to Rule of Procedure No. 57, which says:—
  "A. Minister may, if he thinks fit, on the ground of public interest, answer a question appearing on the Notice Paper although it be not asked."
  May I respectfully say that the public interest involved in this question is that it reflects upon the position of my Noble Friend, Lord Gladstone, my predecessor, and as that reflection appears upon the Paper, I was anxious that a proper answer should be given to it upon the same day. May I ask your ruling again?
  Mr. SPEAKER: We had a Debate of considerable length on this subject on Friday, when a full statement was made by the Under-Secretary, and I presume the Under-Secretary said everything that was to be said on that occasion. If he did not say all that could possibly be said it was his own fault. The House had a full opportunity of discussing it, and the Under-Secretary had a full opportunity of stating all the reasons, and nothing fresh has occurred since.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, Sir, what I draw your attention to is, the reiteration of statements which are directly—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question must have been down upon the Paper before Friday. It must have been down last Thursday or it could not appear upon the paper to-day.

  Passive Resistance (Case of Mr. Ford, Minchinhampton).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had any further information to give in regard to the case of Ford, Minchinhampton?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have now received full reports dealing with this case. Mr. Ford, who is the Baptist Minister at Minchinhampton, was committed to Gloucester Prison on 14th April for two months for non-payment of rates, the amount in dispute being 1s. 9d., which he declared himself conscientiously unable to pay, as being applied to denominational instruction. There had been an open enmity in political and social matters between Mr. Ford, who has a wide influence in the district and is highly esteemed, and Major Ricardo, who was Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates on the occasion when the sentence was inflicted, and who is also, I am informed, chairman of the Conservative Association. I am advised that this enmity did not influence Major Ricardo in the sentence which he passed.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: On a point of Order. Might I ask whether it is a proper thing, in answer to a question in this House, to make a reflection upon a magistrate upon the Bench?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is no reflection on a magistrate to say that he is a Conservative.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a reflection on a gentleman to mention the fact that he is a Conservative—which was not asked for in the question—when it is introduced in relation to a question about his magisterial functions?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The point I wished to submit to you is this. The suggestion was that the magistrate acted with prejudice.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the next sentence of the answer to be that that had no influence with him. [An Hon. Member: "Then why mention it?"
  Mr. CHURCHILL(continuing answer): I am advised that this enmity did not influence Major Ricardo in the sentence which he passed, and it is right to state that the sentence was concurred in by the five other magistrates present on the Bench. [An Hon. Member: "Oh.") Is there anything wrong in that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question in the usual way.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: And, with great respect to you, Sir, I trust that I may be heard with the usual courtesy. (Continuing answer.) Without expressing any opinion upon this, I am bound to observe that it would have been better for all concerned if Major Ricardo had withdrawn from the Bench on this occasion, instead of taking a leading part in sentencing a neighbour, with whom he had been notoriously engaged in the sharpest controversy on the very political and religious matters which were the cause of the refusal to pay rates. The sentence itself will, I believe, be regarded in every quarter of the House as harsh, excessive, and conspicuously inappropriate to the circumstances of the case. The rate has since been paid, not by Mr. Ford or with his cognisance, but by some person unknown to me; and Mr. Ford was in consequence released on Wednesday last.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will at once draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the conduct of the Chairman of the Bench? That is to say, when the Home Secretary in his place in Parliament alleges that there was open animosity—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Then I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the general character of his answer, will at once call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter with a view to his considering the removal of the Chairman from the Bench?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have told the House that the sentence was concurred in by the rest of the Bench, and that I think owing to the notorious ill-will prevailing between the person sentenced and the Chairman of the Bench of Magistrates inflicting the sentence, it would have been much better if Major Ricardo had withdrawn from the Bench during the case.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: In fairness to the magistracy of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the allegation that he has made officially today against a magistrate on the Bench,
  24
  and back up what he has said by recommending the Lord Chancellor to remove that magistrate?
  Sir GEORGE WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman refused to suspend the execution of the warrant although urged to do so, but insisted upon the warrant being immediately executed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given my answer to the House, and the information which has reached me on the subject. I have expressed an opinion upon it, and I certainly do not withdraw or modify that opinion in any way. As to whether further action should be taken, I am not prepared to give any opinion at the present time.

  Police and Cab Calls.
  Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he was aware that, owing to whistles practically similar to police whistles being used by residents in many parts of London for the purpose of calling cabs, the use of police whistles to summon aid was practically nullified; and if he would take steps to ensure the police force having a distinctive whistle or other form of call which, if used by citizens, should be used only for the purpose of summoning the police in cases of emergency?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It cannot be said that in practice real difficulty is experienced in obtaining a response to a police call for aid. The time, the surroundings, and other circumstances, as a rule, make such a call unmistakable. Experience has shown that there would be practical difficulties in restricting the use of any form of whistle.

  Use of Birch in Prisons.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Home Secretary whether, on some date within the last two months, a youth undergoing sentence in Pentonville prison had been birched, with the result that his death occurred the day after; and, if so, whether he would now consider the advisability of having the use of the birch as a mode of punishment abolished?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No youth has been birched in Pentonville prison during the last four years. An adult, aged thirty, was birched on 3tst January, 1910, and he is still in the prison, and in good health

  Political Clubs (Sunday Entertainments).
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would initiate measures to prevent the violation of the Sabbath Day by political clubs, which were in the habit of holding variety entertainments and social functions of a similar nature regularly every Sunday morning and evening, thus leading to a great increase of drink upon the premises?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot accept the suggestion that Sunday entertainments in clubs ought to be wholly suppressed. If they lead to offences against the law, the remedy lies in legal proceedings. One of the objects of the Licensing Bill of two years ago was to strengthen the law with regard to clubs; but I see no opportunity of reviving those provisions at present.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to deal with the matter, may I ask if he will draw the attention of some of the reverend and hon. Members on his side of the House to the question?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Could not the matter be dealt with by an Amendment to the Finance Bill?
  Mr. BARNES: In dealing with this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman also make provision for preventing Members of Parliament from playing golf on Sunday, and also whist-playing in West End clubs?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think the Home Office is called upon to take any such steps?
  Mr. BOWER MAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the various forms of entertainment which take place in West End hotels and clubs, and will he satisfy himself that those who attend them are all teetotallers?

  Census, 1911.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he could arrange to indicate on the Census papers of 1911 the nationality by birth and by naturalisation of each resident recorded in them?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Census Bill provides that the birthplace and nationality of every person shall be stated on the schedules.

  Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907 (Medical Treatment).
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the President of the Board of Education whether an application has been made by the London County Council for the recognition of attendances at hospitals of school children for medical treatment as attendances at school for grant purposes in the same way as recognition is given in respect of their withdrawal for purposes of medical inspection; and whether he proposes to obviate the loss of Grant, which would otherwise be incurred in carrying out the provisions of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, by including in the Code for 1910–11 a provision for such recognition in respect of medical treatment similar to that made under Article 44 (h) in respect of medical inspection?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I am not prepared to extend the scope of Article 44 (h) of the Code, as suggested. I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for such an extension of the scope of the Article, and I am unwilling to add to the complication of our present system of Grants.

  British Traders Abroad.
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of, or whether he will make inquiries to inform himself as to, the practice of foreign Governments operating through merchants who are their subjects, and to whom special financial accommodation and Consular services are freely afforded, in the creation of political commercial spheres of influence in Oriental countries to the exclusion of British traders; and whether he proposes to take any and what action, and whether by international convention or how otherwise, to preserve to British traders the continued right to trade on equal terms with their foreign competitors in such spheres as are now in course of formation?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I have no official information as to the private operations between foreign Governments and merchants to which the hon. Member refers, nor is this a subject on which official inquiries could properly toe instituted. As regards the second part of the question, I am unable to give an

  27
  answer to an inquiry of so comprehensive a character within the limits of a Parliamentary question, but if the hon. Member will specify any particular country I will endeavour to give him information in regard to the position of British traders therein.
  Mr. NIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman in the interval do his best to inquire whether or not the facts stated in the question are true?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give particular information; that will make it more easy for me to inquire.
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the highly organised Government Departments existing in Germany and in the United States of America, corresponding to the Board of Trade in this country, which, acting through the Consular Service, constitute a propelling force for the advancement of commerce abroad, he proposes to take any and what steps to secure to this country equal efficiency and vigilance; and whether, to this end, he would consider the advisability of conferring executive powers on the present Consultative Committee of the Board of Trade?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am not prepared to admit that the organisation and machinery at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the promotion of British commerce are in any degree less effective for that purpose than the corresponding organisations of other countries. I desire to utilise to the full the co-operation and assistance of the Advisory Committee to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think that the usefulness of the Committee would be increased—on the contrary, it would probably be considerably diminished—if it were invested with executive powers.

  Trade and Commerce (Rules of the Supreme Court).
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade: (1) Whether his attention had been drawn to the injury caused to the trade and commerce of the country owing to the infrequent and insufficient action of the Rule Committee to amend, revise, or add to the Rules of the Supreme Court to meet cases of proved injustice which, under existing conditions, remain uncorrected;
  28
  and, if so, whether he proposed to take any action in the matter? (2) Whether he will confer with the Lord Chancellor and with His Majesty's Attorney-General with a view to the consideration of the present operation of the Rules of Court adversely affecting commercial interests and, if approved, take steps to establish a vigilance department of the Board of Trade in legal matters, whose duty it should be to invite and receive from His Majesty's judges, chambers of commerce, and others, quarterly returns of such suggested amendments or additions as may be considered necessary, and to initiate legislation or frame for the consideration of the Rule Committee such draft rules or amendments as the department may recommend to give effect to needed alterations? And (3) Whether he will confer with the Lord Chancellor and His Majesty's Attorney-General upon the subject of the expediency of giving to His Majesty's judges discretionary power to award that the costs of the interpretation of obscure or doubtful provisions in Acts of Parliament affecting commercial interests should be borne by the Consolidated Fund in those instances where the imposing thereof on the parties to litigation would entail an unreasonable burden?
  Mr. BUXTON: My attention has not been drawn to the matter referred to in the first question, but I may say generally that if any specific case of hardship resulting from the operation of the Rules is brought before me I shall be ready to consider it, with a view to possible representations in the proper quarter. This course has been followed in one or two cases which have been brought before the Board of Trade. As regards the second question. I do not see that any good purpose would be served by the establishment of such a Department as the hon. Member proposes. As regards the third question, it does not appear that the Board of Trade is the Department especially concerned.

  Labour Exchanges (Suggested Post Office Registration).
  Mr. LLEWELYNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the possibility of enlarging the scope of the Labour Exchanges by some system of co-operation with the Post Office so as to enable persons residing in rural districts to register their names at the Exchanges free of cost?
  Mr. BUXTON: The extent to which the services of the Post Offices for the exten-

  29
  sion of the Labour Exchange system can be utilised is still under consideration by the General Post Office and the Board of Trade.

  Japanese Tariff and British Trade.
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he, as Chairman of the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, has called for reports from the various chambers of commerce throughout the United Kingdom on the proposed changes in the Japanese tariff which is to come into force next year, and especially chambers in Lancashire and Yorkshire, with a view to ascertaining the effect upon British trade and the nature of the representations which should be made forthwith to the Japanese Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir. Such reports were called for more than a month ago; and, when received, will be considered by the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask whether this is an occasion when the right hon. Gentleman might follow the example of his predecessor at the Board of Trade, and at least use a threat of retaliation to get fair terms?
  Mr. BUXTON: I am considering what action, if any, shall be taken. But we had better wait until we know what are the views of the chambers of commerce, to whom the matter has been referred, and of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, which represents all opinions.
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the new draft tariff of Japan which recently passed the House of Representatives and is to come into force next year; and whether he will publish the same for the information of British exporters, whose trade is seriously threatened by increased imposts?
  Mr. BUXTON: A translation of the new draft Japanese Customs tariff has been prepared by the Board of Trade, and will shortly be issued as a Parliamentary Paper. The provisions of the new Japanese Tariff Bill have been communicated to chambers of commerce and other representative associations with a view to ascertaining the probable effect of the new proposals, if enacted, on British trade. When the replies have been received they will be considered by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence.

  Scottish Agriculture (West and South west Aberdeenshire).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has-been drawn to the extensive alterations being made in West and South-West Aberdeenshire in the use of land, so that districts occupied by small cultivators or by sheep-farmers have been cleared and are now given over exclusively to sport; and whether, in view of the necessity of preserving a population thus sacrificed he will propose to introduce and carry such land legislation for Scotland as will make it impossible for landlord interests to sacrifice national interests?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am quite alive to the importance of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but he will not, I am sure, expect me to give any pledge at the moment as to the reintroduction of legislation dealing with Scottish land or as to new legislation on the subject.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consequence of the policy pursued, the assessment for the rates in this area which has been cleaned has been reduced?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that without notice.
  Mr. HUNT: In view of the necessity of preserving our agriculture and keeping up the agricultural population, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to put as large import duties upon competing goods as our own food producers have to-pay in rates and taxes?

  Spring Recess (Subsequent Business).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister whether he can say what will be the first Parliamentary act of the Government after the Spring Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have said, our present intention is that the first business on our reassembling after the Recess will be to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to pass a Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill immediately after the Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will probably be necessary to introduce a second Consolidated Fund Bill early in June, but I am not yet in a position to specify the precise date.

  Superannuation (Labourers in Government Service).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Prime Minister whether he can see his way to introduce a scheme or Bill whereby labourers employed in the Government service will be provided with a pension when compulsorily retired at the age of sixty; whether he is aware of the hardship occasioned to these old people, whose wages do not allow them to provide for old age; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing them on a footing with other members of the Civil Service?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that I cannot contemplate any extension of the superannuation system to classes of Civil servants who are not now subject to its provisions.
  Mr. NANNETTI: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to the extension to these Civil servants of a pension, can he see his way to bring in a Bill to enable them, by contribution or otherwise, to particpate in the event of a scheme being carried out?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I am afraid as at present advised I cannot.

  Adulteration of Foodstuffs (Court of Reference).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange with the Presidents of the Board of Agriculture and of the Local Government Board for the appointment of an Inter-departmental Committee of those two Departments, as recommended by the late Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman in May, 1006, to consider and report upon the best means of establishing a permanent Court of Reference, whose duty it shall be to investigate the various methods of adulteration (including the adulteration of animal feeding stuffs and fertilisers) which exist or may arise, and to advise as to the steps to be taken to protect effectually the public from the fraudulent sale to them of adulterated articles?
  The PRIME MINISTER:I do not think it necessary to set up a Departmental Committee to report upon the particular question—which, I may add, is not the question dealt with by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman—referred to by the hon. Member. The actual appointment of a Court of Reference would need legislation,
  32
  and may, I think, be deferred pending the result of further experience of the working of the new Foods Department, which has been formed under the Local Government Board. As regards the Board of Agriculture, I understand that the Department have begun the collection of analyses, which is the necessary preliminary to the fixing of a standard.

  Postal Letter Rate to France.
  Sir EDWARD SASSOONasked the Prime Minister whether he would grant a small Select Committee to inquire into the financial difficulties connected with the question of the reduction of the postal letter rate to France and to recommend some reasonable method of solving them, in view of the declared readiness of the French Government to offer a similar reduction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is not a matter which can properly be referred to a Select Committee, but I can assure the hon. Member that the desirability of establishing penny postage with France and other countries on the Continent of Europe will be kept in view by the Government.
  Mr. HENNIKER HEATON: In view of the fact that this is a non-party question, that the whole House of Commons is in favour of the reform, and that may right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in favour of it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will appoint a small Committee to get over the financial difficulties, apart from the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is very largely a question of finance.

  Budget, 1910–11.
  Mr. LONG (for Mr. Austen Chamberlain)asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give any indication as to the date at which the Budget statement for 1910–11 will be made?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not as yet able to make any statement.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he proposes that the Budget for the year 1910–11 shall be introduced immediately after the Recess; and if the taxes and duties are to be collected until that time at the rates settled by the Budget for the year 1909–10?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The only taxes included in the Finance Bill now before Parliament, to which permanent validity will not be given by that Bill when it becomes an Act, are the Income Tax and Tea Duty. As regards Income Tax, the same procedure will be followed as is usual in cases in which the Budget is not introduced until after 5th April. As regards tea, the duty unpaid by the Bill will remain in force until 1st July next.

  Asylum Attendants (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the hours worked by asylum attendants in Ireland; whether he will grant a Return showing the average hours of attendants in similar institutions in England and Scotland; whether he is aware that consumption is a very general complaint amongst lunatics, the mortality amongst whom is very heavy; that the attendants have to be shut up with the patients so afflicted for very long spells at a time, with the result that many contract consumption and die of it; whether at the present moment two of the attendants are ill with this disease in the Omagh County Asylum; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the state of affairs at present existing?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to page 25 of the Sixty-first Report of the Commissioners of Lunacy, which has been presented to Parliament, he will see that the hours of duty for attendants in county and borough asylums in England and Wales are practically the same as at Omagh Asylum. I have no information with regard to Scotland. The Inspectors of Lunatics in Ireland inform me that, so far as they are aware, there has been no general feeling amongst attendants in Irish asylums that their hours are too long. It is a fact that consumption is very prevalent amongst the insane, but it must be borne in mind that the patients affected in asylums are under constant medical supervision, and that efforts are made to keep the insane as much as possible in the open air. The inspectors do not consider that the statement that many attendants die of consumption contracted from the patients is correct. I understand two of the female attendants at Omagh Asylum are on sick leave. In one case symptoms of phthisis set in after bronchitis. It is doubtful whether the disease exists in the other
  34
  case. The question of the hours and conditions of work of attendants of asylums is one for the local committees of management over whom I have no direct control in such matters.

  Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 (Friendly Society Membership).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether the Government will introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, so as to provide that in calculating the yearly means of a pensioner or applicant for a pension no account shall be taken of any sick pay or superannuation allowance received by such pensioner or applicant as a member of a friendly society, seeing that no private Member is permitted to introduce such a Bill?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The first matter to be dealt with by the Government in connection with Old Age Pensions will be the removal of the pauper disqualification, and I am afraid that until that has -been done I cannot give pledges as to further extensions of the right to pensions.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will be the second point to be dealt with?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Well, I am not so sure about that. I will consider it.
  Mr. FLAVIN: May I ask whether persons in receipt of outdoor relief up to Christmas of this year will receive old age pensions next year?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope, when the House reassembles, after the Spring Recess, that a Bill will be introduced dealing with that matter.

  Universal Penny Postage (England and France).
  Mr. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the resolution unanimously passed by the Corporation of the City of London on Thursday last, that the court, recognising the great social and commercial advantages which have resulted from the progress already made towards the ultimate adoption of a universal penny postage system, trusted that His Majesty's Government would now further assist and support that movement by endeavouring to secure its early establishment between England and France; and whether he intends to take any action on this appeal?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen a report in the newspapers of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. The views of His Majesty's Government on this question were expressed by the Postmaster-General in his reply to a deputation in this House on Tuesday last, which included the hon. Member.

  General Election and Harvest Season.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the disorganisation of rural industry consequent upon a General Election during the summer or early autumn, he will, so far as lies in his power, arrange for the development of the political situation in such manner as to avoid the occurrence of such an election during either hay or corn harvest?
  Mr. PIRIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether in the unlikely event of a General Election, will he consider the advisability of introducing a Bill for the purpose of holding all the elections on one day?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no such control over the development of the political situation as would enable me to give any such assurances as the hon. Member desires.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman take counsel with agriculturists below the Gangway, who will be able to give the information?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that the General Election will not take place either before, after, or during the hay or corn harvest?
  Captain CRAIG (for Colonel M'Calmont)asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to a statement by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), to the effect that he would not seek re-election to the present Parliament; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the Department is represented by a Member of the House of Commons?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by Mr. Russell that he did not make the alleged statement referred to in the question.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the Prime Minister tell us how soon a seat is to be found for Mr. Russell, so as to enable him to take his place in this House in accordance with the declaration made by the Prime Minister?

  British Hides (Exportation).
  Mr. RICEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain why hides from imported cattle which are slaughtered at the ports are, on exportation, classed in the British Trade Returns as British hides; and whether, in view of the importance of the ascertainment of this information, he will make inquiries as to what proportion of the exports of hides are of this category?
  Mr. BUXTON: All goods which undergo any process of manufacture or alteration in this country, other than sorting, repacking, or blending, are on exportation classified as exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom. A substantially similar practice is adopted by all the principal commercial countries in the classification of their exports. I will communicate with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise with a view to seeing whether anything can be done towards meeting the point raised in the last part of the question.

  Unemployment in Germany and Great Britain.
  Mr. GEORGE FABERasked what are the present percentages of unemployment, so far as corresponding data are available, in Germany and in this country, respectively?
  Mr. BUXTON: I regret that there are no corresponding data available in Germany and in this country with regard to unemployment which can be properly compared.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor at the Board of Trade gave similar information, care being taken to say that the data was not corresponding?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have said the data was not corresponding.

  Meat Consumption (Great Britain).
  Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of meat consumed per head of the population in. Great Britain during the years 1908 and 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will have the necessary information prepared and will forward it to the hon. Member.

  Railway Travelling (Corridor Carriage Doors).
  Major WHITEasked whether, in consequence of the repeated accidents arising from passengers during night journeys mistaking the outer doors of railway carriages for the doons leading to the corridors, he will issue instructions that railway companies be compelled either to lock such outer doors or provide them with an extra catch on the inside, similar to those used on foreign railways on the outside of doors?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Board of Trade are fully aware of the importance of the question, which is being carefully watched. They would, however, hesitate to recommend the adoption of any arrangement which might make it difficult or impossible for passengers to leave the train in an emergency.

  Zeebrugge Port and Canal.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a new port has recently been established at Zeebrugge and a canal constructed from Zeebrugge to Bruges, 6¼ miles long, 229 feet wide at water level, and with a minimum depth of 26 ft. 3 in., and that the roadstead at Zeebrugge is protected by a breakwater a mile long; and will he consider the advisability of publishing, for the benefit of the commercial community in this country, the fullest possible information on this subject in the Journal of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: These works, of which the hon. Member appears to have just become aware, have been open for over three years, and are doubtless well known to the commercial community in this country. Several references to them have appeared from time to time in past Consular Reports.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he see his way to publishing the particulars available?
  Mr. BUXTON: For the moment I do not see there is any particular need to do so. Reports in reference to this matter have appeared from time to time. The matter is fully known to the commercial community of this country.

BILLS PRESENTED
The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
BILLS PRESENTED
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To amend The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906," presented by Mr. Baird; supported by Mr. Pollock and Mr. Robert Brassey. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT QUALIFICATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  "To extend the qualification for being elected on county and borough councils," presented by Mr. Charles Roberts; supported by Mr. Samuel Butcher, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Dunn. (To be read a second time upon Monday, 6th June.)

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following communication from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions, the following Certificate relating to the Election for the North Lonsdale Division of the county of Lancaster:—
To the Right Honourable The Speaker.
In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division.
In the Matter of the Parliamentary Election for the North Lonsdale Division of the county of Lancaster, holden on the 25th day of January, 1910;
and
In the Matter of a Petition relating to the said Election presented to the High Court on the 15th day of February, 1910, wherein Joseph Bliss was the Petitioner and George Bahr Haddock was the Respondent.
The case raised by the above-mentioned Petition having been stated as a Special Case—
It is hereby certified by the King's Bench Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice that they did, on Friday, the 22nd day of April, 1910, determine as follows:—
That George Bahr Haddock, the Respondent in the above-mentioned Petition, was duly elected and returned at the above-mentioned election.
J. C. LAWRANCE.
WALTER G. F. PHILLIMORE.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  SUSPENSION OF ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Proceedings on the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act (1909) Amendment Bill be not interrupted
  this evening under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."—[The, Prime Minister.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 182.

  Division No. 59.]

  AYES.

  [3.50 p.m.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Pearce, William

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hazleton, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Alden, Percy

  Henry, Charles Solomon

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hindle, Frederick George

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

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hodge, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Barnes, George N.

  Hogan, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reddy, Michael

  Barton, William

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Hudson, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rees, John David

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boland, John Pius

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Johnson, William

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Poplar)

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Kelly, Edward

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Snowden, Philip

  Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Haywood)

  Lambert, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs. N.W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Summers, James Wooley

  Clough, William

  Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

  Sutherland, John E.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Sutton, John E.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lyrch, Arthur Alfred

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Cullinan, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Toulmin, George

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Verney, Frederick William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wadsworth, John

  Delany, William

  M'Laren. F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding)

  Walton, Joseph

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Martin, Joseph

  Waring, Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Dillon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Doris, William

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Molloy, Michael

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Whitehouse. John Howard

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gibbins, F. W.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Muldoon, John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

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

  Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

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

  Gulland, John William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hackett, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Grady, James

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hancock, John George

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Master

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  of Ellbank and Mr. Fuller.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  NOES.

  Adam, Major William A.

  Gilhooly, James

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Attenborough, Walter Annis

  Goldsmith, Frank

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Bagot, Captain J.

  Gooch, Henry Cubitt

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, J. A.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Guiney, Patrick

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barnston, Henry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Proby, Col. Douglas James

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bird, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boyton, James

  Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Brassey, Captain R. (Banbury)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

  Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Royds, Edmund

  Cator, John

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Home, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Stanler, Beville

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Coates, Major Edward F.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches, Wirral)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lawson, Hon. Henry

  Strauss, Arthur

  Craig. Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Sykes, Alan John

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Llewellyn, Venables

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Crean, Eugene

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thompson, Robert

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor. Droitwich)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  M'Arthur, Charles

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs. Southport)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

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

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mason, James F.

  Winterton, Earl

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mitchell, William Foot

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Foster, John K. (Coventry)

  Mount, William Archer

  Gardner, Ernest

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

FINANCE BILL, 1909–10.
Order for Second Beading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
4.0. P.M.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for the city of Cork 4.0 p.m. (Mr. W. O'Brien) has given notice of an Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill, which will not, I think, restrict discussion, but which in its terms is specifically confined to Ireland. I hope he will not think me discour-
42
teous to himself if I intervene before the Amendment is moved to make a few observations. I think I shall detain the House only for a short time. My Friends and myself gave notice of no Amendment to the Second Reading of the Budget. We would have preferred to meet it at this stage of its course with a simple negative. If the hon. Member for Cork moves his Amendment, we shall, of course, vote for the omission of the words "That the Bill be now read a second time," but our grounds of objection are not exactly the same, and still less, if I may say so, are

43
they coterminous with the grounds taken by the hon. Member for Cork. We object to the Budget, not because it is unfair to Ireland, but because we think it injurious to the whole of the United Kingdom. We have at different stages argued each portion of the Budget in some detail, and, though there are provisions in it, as there are in all Budgets, to which we should not take any objection, still our opinion of the Budget as a whole remains the same as it was when we entered upon this discussion in the comparatively early months of last year. We think it a bad Budget. We can take no responsibility for it, and we must record our votes against it at this stage, as we have at all previous stages.
I am not going to-day to attempt to traverse the vast amount of ground covered by the Budget and over which I have travelled so often. I shall say nothing of the point with which I dealt the other day, when I made some observations on the last financial statement for the year 1909–10 delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall say nothing of the effect of the increase in the Death Duties. I shall say nothing further about the injurious effect of the Spirit Duty. I shall say nothing of the Income Tax. Indeed, as far as the 1s. 2d. tax is on practically the ordinary scale of collection, we have never raised any objection on these benches, and as far as it is a Super-tax our objections are of a different character, different in strength and degree to those which we hold towards other portions of the Budget. Neither shall I attempt to go again into the effect of the Land Taxes. We have dealt with them pretty fully, and it so happens that the point on which stress was laid the other day in respect of the Land Taxes is one of the very few points which we can deal with in the Committee stage to some extent at any rate even under the present extraordinarily severe guillotine rules. I, therefore, put all that on one side.
One word I must say, because, owing to forgetfulness, I omitted it altogether from my observations last week, upon the congratulations which the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered to himself about the ultimate surplus of revenue over expenditure for the year which is now closed, a surplus which, of course, is still in the realm of Estimates, because a good many of the taxes are not yet collected, but on which, if those taxes be collected in accordance with the expectations of the
44
Chancellor of the Exchequer, he expressed himself with some pride. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a little deceived himself and not unnaturally perhaps a little deceived the House of Commons as to what was the nature of this surplus. It is not provided by these taxes; it is not provided by his original Budget, or even by the revised Budget of the autumn; it is provided by the total suspension of the Sinking Fund. I think that total suspension, at any rate as a temporary measure, was necessary under the circumstances, and I did not criticise the Chancellor of the Exchequer for proposing it; but really he presumes a little I think on the intelligence of the House when he takes pride to himself for securing a surplus which, if all his expectations are realised and all his Estimates as now modified for the fourth or fifth time come true—and that has not been their fate hitherto—will result purely from the raid he has made upon the Sinking Fund, purely not merely from the raid he has made upon the Sinking Fund, but from the additional raid which he made by the Treasury Borrowing Bill of the earlier months of this year. I will only say further that, if the surplus be realised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's first duty is to restore it to that purpose from which he has temporarily diverted it and to use it for the reduction of debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that this surplus would be at the disposal of the House for the reduction of debt or any other purpose for which they might like to use it. By the settled law of the Kingdom, and by the clear and deliberate will of Parliament, it is not at the disposal of the Government; it is already allocated, not as new Sinking Fund, but as old Sinking Fund for the reduction of debt, and, except on the very best cause shown—and there is no cause shown at present—it should go to that purpose in any event, and it is especially necessary that h should go to that purpose in the present event.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: If realised.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not trying to multiply causes of dispute. We shall know sooner or later whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hopes are realised. In the meantime we may be content to wait and see. I am, however, quite certain I shall have the support of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), than whom no one has

45
been more insistent on the sanctity of the Sinking Fund, old and new, in this House of Commons and in past Houses of Commons, and, although I do not know that there is any particular reason why I should go out of my way to bear testimony to the hon. Member, I do so on this point. He has been perfectly consistent, and he has held that view against his own party, whatever that party was, and has pressed it with great persistence and sometimes with a little acerbity. I hope neither his persistence nor his acerbity will be wanting on the present occasion.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I still so hold, as I held before the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends turned me out of my seat.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to learn the hon. Member still holds that view. There is much to be said for it under any circumstances, and it is one which has quite exceptional weight at the present time when the credit of the country stands lower than we have ever known it—at a time when other national Stocks, which can be compared, are showing a recovery of value contrasted markedly and disastrously with the fall of Consols. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think it was, or somebody, the other day fell foul of one of my hon. Friends for his criticisms on the price of Consols, and asked whether he held the Government responsible, and whether he meant gravely to draw a rigid line, and to say to the House that, whilst Consols had been falling from the time when under Lord St. Aldwyn they touched 114 to eighty-five or eighty-six, and thence in the last four years to a little above eighty, the fall till the point eighty-five was reached was the result of natural or financial causes over which the Government had no control, and that afterwards it was entirely due to the Government or to their proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer omitted to notice that the fall from the point of 114 had been influenced, not merely by the occurrence of a great war and the heavy borrowings which that involved, but also by reduction in the rate of interest following, after many years of interval, on the late Mr. Goschen's scheme of conversion. That a good deal vitiates- his calculation. In the earlier years there was a general fall in gilt-edged securities of all kinds. Yes, but has there been the same fall in the gilt-edged securities of all kinds and of all nations in the last four years, and especially in
46
the last twelve months? No; there has been recovery elsewhere. If you take home securities, there has been recovery in London County Council Stock. There has been recovery in the stocks of France and foreign countries—yes, and of Ger many. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) will find that out if he consults the ordinary books of reference.
For anyone who will observe facts and note them with an impartial mind, it is evident there are now special causes depressing British Government securities which are not of general application to all securities of that kind elsewhere. What are those special causes? They are the general trend of legislation—the ideas which have been prevalent in the late House of Commons and in this, on property, on investments, on capital, on the rights of the State, and on the demerits of individual investment, and still more the speeches which have been made and the principles appealed to in support of the legislation, principles and speeches which go far further than the legislation itself, and which justify, if they justify arything, not an attack merely on the particular forms of property which are now chosen for attack, and not merely that degree of taxation on unpopular forms of property which is now fixed upon, but a general raid at the will of the Executive, and at the will of a majority, on any form of accumulated or invested property in this country. That has shaken credit. The results of it are already apparent, and unless the movement can be decidedly checked these results will ripen and increase in volume and become more and more dangerous in their influence upon trade and the credit of this country, and first and foremost on the Government itself. I think, while I allude to the prices at which Government securities stand, you can easily lay too much stress on the market quotations of such securities as a test of Government credit. You have to ask yourself not only what the present stock stands at, but what is the borrowing capacity of the Government should an emergency arise which necessitates borrowing. I venture to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even in his rosiest moments, after his recent experience, will not be able to give a very favourable account of that. I believe what happened on the recent issue of Exchequer Bonds is without parallel in our history—that the Government should have had to close the list early, not

47
because applications were so numerous that otherwise they-would have been overwhelmed, but because they were so few, and those which had been made were being withdrawn, and if the lists were kept open for the ordinary time the Government loan would not have been covered. That is a fact of the very gravest import to the Government of this country—not to one party or to the other, but to the nation as a whole. Under these circumstances, it behoves the Government to walk carefully and to do everything it can to allay the distrust which it has created, to cultivate the confidence which it has destroyed, and to restore the credit it has so seriously injured.
I pass from that very grave matter to one more immediately connected with the Budget, and the only one on which I really propose to detain the House to-day. There is one part of the Budget on which we have said practically nothing this Session, and on which we shall have no opportunity of saying anything. We have practically had no chance hitherto, and we shall have still less chance to-morrow when we go into Committee on the proposals of the Government in regard to licences on the brewing trade generally, for they are a closed book to the Committee. We nominally enter on the Committee stage of the Bill, but we really enter into Committee consideration of such proposals—some half-dozen in number—aa the Government have altered in their original Bill. Where the Government have made no alteration the Committee will have no opportunity of passing the Clauses of the Bill in review or of expressing any opinion by speech or even by vote upon it. That is, indeed, to reduce the House of Commons to a farce, and, had I not lived to see it, it is an indignity which I would not have believed any House of Commons would have submitted to. We shall be unable to discuss these proposals in Committee. No Amendment can be made, and the House and the country will, in a short time, be face to face with the results which the Government have created by their licensing clauses. They have been held in suspension, in terrorem, over the trade for the last twelve months. The axe will shortly fall, and the full weight of these provisions will be felt. What is going to be the result? What is the object with which they are produced? Are they proposed in order to obtain revenue, or are they proposed as a measure of temperance reform? The Chancellor of
48
the Exchequer is very agile. He hops from one leg to the other. He is equally pleased with himself, and he desires the country to be equally pleased, whichever leg he stands on. He proposed the Whisky Duties as a great source of revenue. He was proud of them as such, and boasted of the results they would produce. And when his boast was entirely falsified, when they produced less than nothing, instead of the £1,600,000 which he had anticipated, he appeared before the House with an almost lyric appearance of satisfaction over the great temperance reform which he had carried. Neither side of the House, no party in the House will speak lightly of measures which are honestly, genuinely, and justly devised for the promotion of greater sobriety among our people. But none of these adjectives are applicable to the course of the Government in this matter. They devised the measure partly to extort revenue and partly to punish opponents. They failed to extort revenue, but they succeeded in punishing a trade against which they had a grudge. If temperance had been their object, they would have found many men on both sides of the House willing to cooperate with them, but then their measure would have been devised against all classes of the Iiquor trade equally, and they would not have selected a special part of the trade for special and exceptionally heavy taxation. If temperance had been their object, and temperance only, they would have promoted that great object with a sense of their responsibility to those whom the State had encouraged to enter upon a lawful trade, and who had conducted that trade without committing any offence, but with credit to themselves and under the greatest difficulties, without coming within the meshes of the law. They have done none of these things. Their measures are unequal in their operation. They are unjust to the individuals pursuing a lawful calling who never have infringed the strict and severe law under which their trade is carried on. We know what has been the result as regards whisky. It has very nearly ruined the people who had carried on that trade, and probably has ruined a considerable number of them and others engaged in subsidiary industries dependent on it. I am bound to say once again that the same result will follow, and must follow, from the taxes on licences and on brewing which are embodied in this Budget.
The House has had one or two figures at different times indicative of the enor-

49
mous increase of the burden which the Government is placing upon this trade. There has been further time for the consideration of these proposals, and for weighing the exact measure of alleviation —as far as that can be exact which depends on the will of Commissioners whose mind cannot be in detail anticipated beforehand—for measuring the exact result of the alleviation they have promised. I will give the House a very few figures. I 'will mention a case of one brewery as illustrating what may be the fate of many. It is a brewery which, I think, nobody will say was floated with inflated capital, which no one will say has been badly managed, and which is probably at least as well equipped as any other brewery in the country similarly circumstanced as regards its power to meet the additional strain placed upon it. I am willing to give the name of the brewery if any Member of the House desires it. I do not volunteer it because it is not my business to advertise or name the brewery unless my figures are challenged, but I have authority to give the name if so desired. The additional charges imposed by this Budget on this brewery are estimated as follows:—For manufacturer's licence, an addition of £9,750. Here let me pause for a moment to say that the year before this Budget was brought in the Prime Minister was directly asked by an hon. Member sitting behind me whether the Government would not graduate the Brewers' Licence Duty in accordance with the amount; of beer which they brewed, and he replied that that was a registration duty not suitable for or applicable to graduation. That was a considered reply in answer to a written question. Yet without one word of explanation, apology, or excuse the Government have executed a right about face, and propose to graduate on the most severe scale this duty which the Prime Minister declared to be unsuitable for the purpose. The additional duty under this head on the brewery will be £9,750, and on the public-houses and beerhouses which are tied to it there will be levied an additional £43,000, giving a total additional sum of £52,750. After making allowance for the most favourable results of the so-called concessions involved in the alternative scale for the assessment of houses over £500, it is estimated that the lowest I sum payable will be £52,750. There is one element which is uncertain, and that is I how much of that will be paid by the other party where there is a double or triple
50
tie, what portion of the new charge the Commissioners may think fit to allocate to each of the ties. If the tie be for beer, for spirits, for mineral waters, or for tobacco the Commissioners are to define what is the share proper to be borne by each of the interests to which the house is tied. At the lowest computation I am advised there would remain on this brewery the additional charge of no less than £40,000 a year. The total amount divided by the brewery among their ordinary shareholders, after meeting debenture and preference charges, is £28,588. The whole ordinary dividend, every penny of the return—and that return is only 2½ per cent, on capital in the case of a brewery which, as I said, was not floated on an inflated value—but which is due to the decrease of trade that has been going on in the last few years—the whole of that modest return of 2½ per cent, on the shareholders' investments is swept away, and a deficit of something like £12,000 is left to be met out of preference or debenture charges. What effect is this going to have on these securities. With brewery shareholders you have not much sympathy, although I do not know why they should not be treated as fairly as any other class of investments. I believe that the great bulk of them are small people and not men of large property, but setting individual interests aside, if this be the case in regard to one of the breweries most able to meet the new state of things, what is going to be the position of other great concerns less happily situated? What is going to be the effect on credit and on mortgages and debenture interests? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government, without knowing it or without caring about it, may be putting a receiver into half the great brewery concerns of the country. They may be causing, besides the loss of trade, a loss of property and credit, the ultimate results of which no man can measure, and which they themselves would be unable to make good or compensate. In individual cases, outside of the shareholders and the debenture holders, you will be doing an amount of injury, inflicting hardship—aye, and ruin—such as I think will revolt the country when it sees the scheme in practical working.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a little sensitive about his estimates on these licensing matters, and he covers his own position by saying that we were equally wrong and the trade was equally wrong on the question of the Spirit Duties.

51
If he likes to say that the trade did not believe it was going to work the ruin it has done, is that any satisfaction to him, because he has worked the ruin and done the injury? They believed the injury would be less, and therefore he has worked more that he expected. I do not know what injury he expects to do to the licensed trade, but I know that his estimate* of what he will get from the Licence Duty can only be justified by his assumption—a perfectly well-founded assumption—that he is going to close without a penny of compensation a great number of licensed houses in this country. I say that that means a large amount of undeserved hardship on honest, hard-working individuals, who work under the most stringent restrictions!, whose character is most scrupulously examined before they are allowed to enter upon the trade, and whose every hour of public trading passes under the review of the police and the law in a way which no other trade does—and these are the men who without a shadow of compensation, though for years past they have been contributing to a compensation fund, without an allegation that they have done wrong in even the least particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to deprive of their business and their living and turn out into the streets. That is not taxation, but simply confiscation. It is not one whit the less outrageous because the right hon. Gentleman applies it to a trade which is under the political ban of his party and is unpopular with his own supporters. It is the business of a man—it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before all men to uphold a standard of even-handed justice in these matters and to resist even the strongest pressure from bitter partisans to do under disguise of fiscal legislation what would not be tolerated if it were brought forward in its naked and undisguised form.
It only adds to the aggravation of the situation that the method of assessment which the Government have chosen tells with the most unequal force as between trader and trader, and that in one house you will charge as high as 3s. 7d. a barrel in new taxation on the beer, while in average houses in London you will charge something like 2s. 6d. or 2s. 9d. for the Brewers' Trade Duty, and in other cases— and these the cases in which it is most desirable, not by the means of this Bill but by honest means, to get rid of first— the charge will only be a shilling or so
52
on every barrel of beer which is sold. I say a measure that is so devised, framed in that spirit, and fraught with that result, is ill-omened for our credit, is injurious to that sense of security on which all trade depends, and destroys the confidence which it ought to be the first duty of Governments to create, or to reinforce in order to encourage the investment of capital in this country, to stimulate industry and to provide the employment which we are lacking. I say to embody these measures in a Bill which pretends to be a-Finance Bill is to outrage every canon of sound finance by whom ever laid down on whichever side of the House he sits, and is to destroy the last shadow of ground there would be for the contention of the Government and the majority of this House that it is safe to trust to a majority of this House the whole financial arrangements of the country without check or control in any other place, and without the right of appeal to the people. Why do you not dare to put these proposals in a separate measure, and bring them in, as they should be brought in, as a Licensing Bill for the reduction of licences? Such a measure would meet with the same fate that your other proposal of that kind was met with. [Hon. Members: "Lansdowne House."] Lansdowne House if you like, in the first instance, and, after all, I would just as soon have my affairs settled at Lansdowne House as at a meeting in the National Liberal Club, or even at a convention in the Rotunda. I say that such a measure would meet with the same fate as your other proposal met with; it would be rejected in the other place I daresay. But would you dare to take it to the country? If you did, I say it without fear of contradiction—every man knows it, I do not care how strong a temperance reformer he is— you would be beaten in the country, because your proposals are intrinsically unjust and unfair, and our countrymen, whatever be their opinions, value justice and fair treatment as between man and man and as between class and class.
Mr. J. J. CLANCY: I rise on behalf of the party with which I act to say that we intend to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, and I may say at once that the reason why I do so, and we do so, is entirely unconnected with the merits or demerits of this Bill. I frankly confess that up to a very recent date I felt convinced that we should be obliged to take the opposite course. It seemed that the cause for which I care most was being sacrificed to other

53
interests, and that in fact the interests of the democracy of Great Britain were also imperilled, and I considered that, regard being had to the pledges we had given to our own people, there would be no alterative but to put an end to that state of things, if we could possibly do so, winch threatened to end in such disaster. Happily we find ourselves in a position to take the course which I have announced. The unmistakable declaration of the Prime Minister on Thursday night has, in my opinion, completely altered the situation. Let anyone who doubts, that, especially any Gentleman above the Gangway, read the letters and articles in the Unionist Press from day to day upon the subject of compromise and on the necessity of burying Tariff Reform with a view to prevent, of course, the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords and the early passage of a Home Rule Bill, which ire evidently regarded as convertible terms almost, and are regarded as inevitable, unless there is a change of tactics on the part of the Unionist party.
If this be so, then the duty of Irish Nationalist Members, as we conceive it, is clear beyond all doubt; it is to sink our objections, whatever they may be, to this Budget for the sake of the greater object which the passing of it will in our opinion enable us to attain. Moreover, I believe that the time for mere abstention on our part has passed. We did abstain on the Third Reading of this Bill last year, for the reasons then clearly stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and which are well understood on both sides of the House, and in both countries at this present moment. But many things have happened since then. The Albert Hall speech of the Prime Minister had not been then delivered; the question of Home Rule had not then been put as an issue at the Election as it was in that speech put as such an issue, and no pledge had then been given such as was given in that speech that the first object of Liberal policy would be the abolition of the one obstacle which for the last twenty years has stood in the way of that Irish reform as well as of the majority of the reforms desired by the great majority of the democracy of Great Britain. And, just as we refrained on that occasion from recording our votes against that Budget from a desire not to strengthen the hands of the enemies of Irish liberty, so now, for the purpose of strengthening
54
the hands of the friends of Irish liberty in the great conflict now impending, we will vote for the Budget without doubt, hesitation, or fear as to the meaning which will be put upon our motives by our own people.
I am the less sorry to be obliged to take this course when I find myself opposed in this matter by a party which, by the mouths of its Leaders even on this very night, has for the last fourteen or fifteen years denied the existence of the grievance of the over-taxation of Ireland, which was established, to my mind, beyond all doubt, by the Royal Commission of 1894. I remember very well the many Debates which have taken place ever since that time on this Question. Every one of the Leaders of the Opposition who has spoken on the subject at all ridiculed from the beginning to the end of their speeches the very idea that Ireland was being overtaxed. The Leader of the Opposition especially distinguished himself by taking this line. I forget whether he was Leader of the House or Prime Minister when he said that if we stopped drinking whisky we should have no grievance at all. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was challenged by various Irish Members to say what view he took about the obligations imposed on this country in respect of Irish taxation by the Act of Union. He was not by any means the worst of the lot, but he expressly denied that we were entitled to separate treatment under the Seventh Article of the Act of Union, and he expressly declared that never would the Unionist party, at least, assent to the doctrine that we should get separate treatment. He did this not once, but several times, and in successive years. The same line was taken by his successor (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and it is rather curious and significant that the very first sentence which the right hon. Gentleman spoke tonight was a repudiation, practically, of the proposition contained in the Amendment of which notice is given by the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien) that Ireland is entitled to separate treatment. Not only that, but those Gentlemen between them during the long period in which they exercised power, added two and a half millions a year to the over - taxation of Ireland, and it is a curious and significant fact that in the whole course of the Budget Debates of last year and this year, notwithstanding all their talk against this Budget, never once did any Unionist leader admit that Ireland was

55
over-taxed, and never once did any one of them promise that if the Budget were defeated, and the Unionist party were called upon to frame an alternative Budget, they would exempt Ireland from its operation. I challenge any of them now to say that if this Budget were rejected, not a shilling of additional taxation would be put upon Ireland if they came to power. It is needless to put the question. We know what they will do. They will impose the additional taxation required, and Ireland will not be exempted from it. We all remember what occurred at the close of last year, when the late Attorney-General for Ireland, late at night, protested with heat and indignation against the differentiation in the matter of the licence duties in favour of Ireland. But instead of being cast on the rich, they would cast them on the poor in Ireland, and thus a greater addition would be made, because the poor are more numerous than the lich, to the taxation of Ireland than is made at present. Meanwhile they would continue to maintain the Union and the present system of governing and of taxing Ireland, which makes the over-taxation of Ireland possible, and makes it inevitable that it should continue.
But it is said that Ireland, and especially the farmers of Ireland, will be ruined by this Budget. The farmers of Ireland might indeed be ruined, and we might well be forced to vote against it, even though a worse one were to follow, if all the stories which have been spread about it in Ireland were true. Most of these stories may be fitly, and I think moderately, characterised as gross exaggerations. Take what I may call the two-million myth. Never has there been such a hardy product of the imagination. It has been fathered by responsible as well as irresponsible personages in public, and has outlived, until the close of last week, repeated exposure. It was itself inherently improbable. Under the system of indiscriminate taxation Ireland paid, in the financial year previous to the Budget, one-sixteenth of the total taxes raised in the three kingdoms, and what the Irish people have been asked to believe by the authors of the two-million myth is that of £12,500,000 additional taxation, raised, in the main, under the same system of indiscriminate taxation, Ireland's share would be not one-sixteenth but one-sixth. I do not think the Irish cause is served by statements which can be so easily demonstrated to be
56
absolutely without foundation. Take, again, the Death Duties. It has been stated that, as enacted in this Budget, they will hit every farmer in Ireland. The spectacle of landlords and partisans of landlords meeting on behalf of the poorer tenants in Ireland was itself suspicious. We do not gather figs from thistles or grapes from thorns, and it struck me as particularly audacious to find men who, either in their capacity of Members of the House of Lords or as outside advisers, had taken part in the mutilation of the Land Bill of last year coming out on public platforms or in the Press as the saviours of the Irish agricultural community against the imposition of these new Death Duties. Under this Budget there is absolutely no increase at all in the rate of the Death Duty until the sum of £5,000 is reached— a fact never mentioned on the public platforms in Ireland. Ninety per cent, of the farmers in Ireland are covered by that figure, and would escape altogether any additional Death Duty if there were nothing else. But the Budget as originally framed proposed to repeal the provision of the Harcourt Act of 1894, which limited the valuation of agricultural property for Death Duties to twenty-five times the Poor Law valuation. It was that proposal alone which would have caused an addition to the Death Duties in the case of the overwhelming majority of the Irish farmers, and it would have seriously aggravated the grievance of the overtaxation of Ireland by putting a tax on Ireland which, from the necessities of the case, could not be levied in England.
5.0 p.m.
While certain critics of the Budget were absent in Ireland some of us remained here and pressed on the Government the expediency of amending the provision and the result is seen in Clause 61, which, though it does not go to the whole extent we would desire, and pressed for, does, beyond all doubt, protect 80 per cent, of the whole body of the Irish farmers. In the first place, every yearly tenant in Ireland, including every tenant holding under a statutory tenancy—in other words, every tenant who has had a judicial rent fixed on his holding, is expressly protected, no matter what his valuation. Thus at the start, more than half of the whole body of the agricultural tenants of Ireland are expressly saved. In the next place all tenants are saved who have purchased and whose net assets do not amount to £1,000 net. That, again, means that more than 80 per cent, of those tenants are saved also, and those who have bought

57
get a further advantage which they never had before. Hitherto, if the gross assets of a tenant were under £500, a reduction could not be made in the assessment of value for Death Duties of the amount outstanding of the advance made for the purchase of his holding. That result came about from the very fact of the purchase. It was the result, in other words, of land purchase, and of the Land Purchase Acts, which are so much belauded. That deduction is now allowed for the first time.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: It always was SO.
Mr. CLANCY: I really do not wish to enter into controversy with the hon. Member, but that is not because I admit his statement to be correct. As a matter of fact those who desired to obtain advantage of the 30s. and the 50s. duty could not deduct anything if that incumbrance was created by the deceased. The hon. Member will have to admit that. That deduction is now allowed for the first time, and the right is extended for the first time—and here is another point which is never mentioned in Ireland by the critics of the Budget—to everybody who has bought his house with money borrowed from building societies, including hundreds and thousands of persons who have bought their houses in the towns of Ireland. It was a most important, concession in my opinion, affecting almost all the tenant purchasers, because the average amount advanced for the purchase of a holding does not exceed £400. It enables persons who would otherwise have to pay at the ordinary rate to avail of the right to pay at the fixed duties of 30s. and 50s., with only 15s. for court fees, and others to escape duty altogether, who would otherwise have paid it. I have myself been furnished within the last few days with some particulars of cases by a respectable solicitor in Dublin, whose name I have permission to give—Mr. Thomas Early. He wrote to me a letter, which I hope he will publish in the Press, and which he thought might interest me because it concerned five or six cases in my own Constituency. I will not trouble the House with all the details. I will give the facts regarding two of these cases. They may be taken as samples of many others. There was one case of forty-eight acres (Irish) bought under the Land Acts, and five acres (statute) in a second holding, and other assets £195. Under
58
the old law as it existed before the Budget was introduced at all the duty would have been £2 10s., and the Probate Fees about £2, or, altogether £4 12s. Under the original proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that duty would have been monstrously increased. It would have amounted to about £33 for duty and £6 for fees, making together £39. Under the Budget as amended, and as it is going to pass through the House, the duty actually paid in this case is £3 5s. I should say, rather, the total is £2 10s. for duty and 15s. for court fees, making together £3 5s. That is the case, not of a small farm, and, moreover, it is in the metropolitan county of Dublin where land is supposed to be more valuable than elsewhere—wrongly supposed I believe.
Let me take the case of a small farm of four acres purchased and eleven acres agreed to be purchased, and other assets. The duty under the old law would have been nil, but the fees would have amounted to £1 10s. That would have been raised by the Budget as originally introduced to duty £2 10s., with fees £3, making together £5 10s. Under the Budget as it now stands the duty is nil, and the court fees are only 15s. In other words, instead of being worse off, 80 per cent, of the farmers of Ireland are in the same position as they were in before, or in a better position. It is nonsense, therefore, to talk of the oppressive character of the Death Duties so far as the great bulk of the farmers of Ireland are concerned. A small minority of big farmers will be hit, I admit, and I am very sorry for them, because I do not want to hit any class in the community. I think they should have been exempted as well as the others, but if there must be increased taxation, I am glad it is not the majority who will suffer. I would direct the attention of the few large farmers to the fact that if they are hit now, they will be equally hit if any alternative Budget is introduced, for on the Third Beading of the Bill of last year, as those who were in the House will bear witness, the Leader of the Opposition did not object to the Death Duties at all, and, in fact, he objected to none of the new taxes, except the Licence Duties and, I think, the Land Taxes. Before I pass from this subject let me give an illustration of the manner in which the battle over the Death Duties has been fought in Ireland. A Dublin solicitor, Mr. Lawrence O'Neill, wrote a letter to the Press giving particulars of a case in which he had been professionally concerned, The

59
father of a family died, he said, prior to the introduction of the Budget, leaving to his son a farm of over ninety acres. That, be it observed, is not a small holding, and it was in the county of Dublin, in my own Constituency. It was held under a tenancy. The Estate Duty paid was £11 11s. 7d. The son who succeeded purchased under the Land Acts for £4,343, plus the bonus of 12 per cent. He died in his turn and left the purchased holding to his sister. The Estate Duty then actually paid on behalf of the sister after the introduction of the Budget was £120, or ten times more than the duty paid on the previous occasion before the Budget. Mr. O'Neill's letter, need I say, was given wide circulation. It was before the General Election; it was a perfect godsend to the critics of the Budget. It was circulated, I am bound to say, mostly by Unionist candidates in the North of Ireland. The comments made may be left to the imagination. What happened? A short time afterwards Mr. O'Neill, whom I know to be a thoroughly honourable man, who would not keep a secret of this kind to himself after having made the previous statement, wrote another letter, in which he stated that since his previous letter he had obtained a refund under Section 61, Sub-section 1, of the present Bill as amended of the difference between £11 11s. 7d. and £120, so that the duty eventually charged in respect of this large farm was exactly the eame as would have been paid if this Budget had never been introduced. Did the second letter receive wide circulation? Of course, it was not noticed at all. It was never alluded to by one of the critics of the Budget, and to this day I have no doubt that many, if not most, of those to whom the story in Mr. O'Neill's letter was repeated have never heard of the second letter. It is little wonder that there should have been popular misapprehension, and that consequent agitation should exist.
Let me give another illustration of what is actually going on at the present moment. I have heard within the last few days that a story is current in various parts of Munster that farmers who now choose to make a marriage settlement, and to give a son or daughter a farm by ordinary marriage settlement, would have to pay double Stamp Duties. It is an absolute falsehood. By Sub-section (6) of Section 74 of this Bill marriage settlements are absolutely excluded. The fact is that the
60
Budget is not nearly so bad as it is represented to be, especially when we remember —and this is a point that is never mentioned in Ireland by the critics of the Budget—that we get back out of it considerable sums for local purposes, such as roads, drainage, light railways, harbours, and tramways, and I hope, indeed I feel assured, for the solution of that most, urgent of all Irish social problems, namely, the housing of the poor. My purpose is not to minimise the grievance which the Budget does inflict. It does inflict a grievance in adding anything at all to the taxation of Ireland. I do not allude to the Land Taxes. I do not believe, and I have never believed, these Land Taxes will touch a single inch of agricultural land which is not also building land. I was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer declare that if any doubt existed that agricultural land as such is not to be taxed, he will accept an Amendment which will remove that doubt absolutely.
As I understand the meaning of the Amendment made in the Bill it is this: Various criticisms have been passed upon Clause 7, and two points were taken, and only two worth attention, by a learned friend of mine at the Irish Bar, who wrote an elaborate opinion to this effect, that as Clause 26 was to be read in connection with Clause 7, two things might result. First, that the agricultural value to be ascertained in Clause 26 would be stereotyped, and therefore, if there was any increase of value when the tax came to be paid, that increase would be taxed notwithstanding Clause 7. The second was that the value taken might be the economic value, and therefore, if there was a competition value which would be higher, the difference between the agricultural value and the competition value would be taxed. I understand, and I hope I am correct in understanding, that the Amendment made in the Bill is this, that it meets those two points. By putting in the words "at the time" it provides that the valuation shall not be stereotyped, but that the value taken, the agricultural value meant, shall be the value at the time of the sale, death or otherwise; and in the next place that that value shall be the competition value, because the words "in the open market" are used. I myself have some doubt still as to whether or not there will be criticism made on these words. I will make one myself. I would say that the words "if sold" still suggest some shadowy

61
doubt. They might refer to only one of the occasions upon which duty is levied. I desire that the "market value" shall refer to all the occasions not only of sale, but of valuation or of death, and therefore I would suggest that the Government should adopt some such words as these which I shall take the liberty of putting down myself—to leave out the words "if sold in the open market at the time," and make the clause read "at the market value at the time for agricultural purposes." In my opinion if that Amendment is made agricultural land is safe; and I would point out to any learned Gentleman above the Gangway that, after all, this is a taxing Statute, and if there is any doubt as to whether the subject is to be taxed, then the doubt must be given in favour of the subject.
And now one word about the valuation. Terror has been sought to be created in the minds of Irish farmers by representing to them that a valuation of the whole of the land of Ireland would be immediately undertaken. I do not believe that anything of the kind is going to occur. Moreover, my opinion is that nothing of the kind has ever been suggested by the Government. And I think what the Chancellor ought really to say, what I think he has practically said before, that so far as Ireland is concerned there will not be, and need not be, any new valuation. There is a valuation already, Griffiths' valuation. It can be taken as the basis; and if you want to find the capital value the only thing to do is to find out a number by which you can multiply the annual value. So I do not believe that there is anything in this cry of valuation. And in any case, in my opinion, there will never be a single halfpenny of tax put, under this Budget, upon any agricultural land which is not also building land. I have said that while the Budget so far as Ireland is concerned is not the monstrously unjust Budget it is represented to be, it is still unjust. How does it come to be unjust? Everyone knows that it is the direct outcome of the infamous Union of 1800, brought about by Pitt and Castle-reagh.
Some of us have thought and said in past years that we might make our stand in our fight against overtaxation on the financial provisions of the Act of Union. But every Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I have already observed, repudiated the interpretation of the Seventh Article of the Act of Union, which we
62
have endeavoured to impress upon them. Every single Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer has done it, and so has the Leader of the Opposition, and he will not deny it. No separate treatment is to be given to Ireland if he and his party can help it; and it thus happens that when new or increased taxes have to be raised Ireland is always treated as if it were an English shire, and is taxed at the same level as England, with the invariable result that, as Ireland is poorer than England, it is always overtaxed in comparison with England. That is what is called the overtaxation of Ireland. That is the thing to which we want to put to an end. We cannot even begin the process of putting an end to it until the Veto of the House of Lords has been destroyed. It is because that issue of the Veto is about to be put in a few weeks to the country that we of the Irish party will no longer abstain from voting on this Budget, but will vote for it. And if we had any doubt as to whether we were right, it would assuredly be removed by the reflection that we shall find in the opposite Lobby every enemy of Irish liberty.
Mr. W. F. PERKINS: As a new Member and representing an agricultural Constituency, I rise to emphasise the opposition which I share with the vast majority of my Constituents against particularly the first part of the Finance Bill. I do not propose to go into what I call Committee points at this stage, but I confine myself entirely to the broad general principles which underlie this new and unprecedented form of taxation of land. It was upon the question of additional taxation of land that I fought, and I claim to have won the victory in my Constituency, and, therefore, it is a matter on which a new Member particularly ought to raise his voice. The first point to which I wish to direct attention, and which, I think, has escaped attention in this Parliament, though I believe it received a certain amount of attention in the last, is that there is no logical reason why a profit which is made on a land transaction or an unearned increment arising out of land should be taxed, while other forms of profit taking and other forms of unearned increment remain untaxed. The Prime Minister last year, speaking not in this House, but, I believe, at Oxford on this very question, laid down the principle that the reason why land should be selected for a particular form of taxation which was not put on other forms of investment, was that land was a mono-

63
poly, and was limited in quantity, and that as the whole community wanted land and the quantity was limited, therefore land was a fair subject for taxation. I do not for one moment contradict the logic of the Prime Minister in saying that land was a monopoly, and that land was limited in quantity, but I do most strenuously protest against the assumption that land is the only matter of value which is limited in quantity.
Take, for example, the case of water. Water is a matter of vital necessity. It is limited in quantity. If it were unlimited in quantity it would have no value, and the mere limitation of its quantity is the essence of its value. Now Parliament has in times past permitted companies to become monopolists in the supplying of water, and Parliament has permitted and has safeguarded companies in supplying water to towns. It has safeguarded and put a ring-fence round those companies, and has prevented other companies competing with them for supplying water, and it has allowed companies to make large profits, even up to 10 per cent., out of the supply even of a necessity to the community. If companies are allowed to trade, in water which is a necessity of the community, why should not companies or individuals be allowed to trade in land, which is a similar monopoly I But it seems to me in practice it would be exceedingly difficult for any set of commissioners or valuers to distinguish in fact on any transaction, such as the sale of land, between the land and the buildings which may be upon it. Take, for example, a very common instance: Say two men go into the market to invest £10,000. One buys a large town house with a small piece of ground, and it is agreed between himself and the Commissioners that the value of the land and the house upon it should be apportioned as to £9,000 upon the large town house and £1,000 upon the ground upon which it stands. That man sells the estate and makes a profit of £1,000 unearned increment. Has he made it out of the house or out of the land? Nobody can say. However, to be fair, I assume that the Commissioners would say that the profit must be apportioned pro rata between the house and the land, so that the £1,000 profit would be divided up in the proportion of £900 out of the house and i £100 out of the land. Accordingly, on that £100 unearned increment, and on that £100 only of the transaction, one-fifth, or £20,
64
would be paid in tax. The other man with his £10,000 goes into the market and buys, instead of a small piece of land, a large piece of land, with a small country house— a farmhouse, for example—upon it.
Assume that the converse takes place. He spends £10,000—£1,000 the value of the house, and £9,000 the value of the land. He sells at £1,000 profit. That £1,000 profit must be apportioned pro rata—in other words, he has got to divide as 1 to 9, or £900 profit out of the land and £100 out of the house, and he has to pay Unearned Increment Duty on the £900. He has, in fact, to pay nine times as much as Unearned Increment Duty on that transaction in the Country as he would have to pay on a transaction in London. By no logic, by no principle of fairness can that system be justified, and until we see a way of entirely separating the land from building—which I believe is the intention of the Government—and until transactions in land are free from all that is upon the land, it will never work fairly, and it will raise endless controversies. The second point I wish to make, and which affects my own Constituency very much indeed, is in regard to the incidence of these taxes on small holdings. I do not think that this matter has been properly ventilated in the country. I do not think that the hundreds of thousands of small holders in this country realise that in very many instances they will be subjected to this new and unprecedented taxation. It is quite true that there are apparent safeguards in regard to Unearned Increment and the Undeveloped Land Duty, but those safeguards do not provide in many instances within my own knowledge for people who have invested small sums of money in agricultural land for the purpose of cultivating it as small holdings. The point that particularly affects my own Constituency in the New Forest is this: In the New Forest there is a large number of small holders. In consequence of the charms of the forest, a great many desire to come there to live, and the result is there is a demand for land as sites for country houses. No one can tell when a person coming from the North of England, or elsewhere, will select a particular spot of land on which to build a house; therefore, every piece of land in the New Forest which is adjacent to open glades of the forest, or commands a good view, is a potential building site. No one can say that the land has not a building value, but on the other hand no one can say when that value will be realised. A great many

65
small freeholders in the forest are content to cultivate their land until such time as they are able to sell it at a profit for the purpose of building. It may not happen in their life, or in the life of their heirs, sons or grandsons, that particular pieces of land may be bought or attempted to be bought by newcomers. Therefore, it will form a particular hardship on them that this Increment Duty should be levied not merely at the time of the sale, but also at the time of a change of ownership, in consequence of death. The land may pass from father to son, but before the son can inherit he will have to pay Increment Duty, although possibly for many years after he has inherited, possibly during his life, he will never have the advantage of the increment. The increment is not merely unearned but unreceived, and possibly unreceivable within the man's lifetime.
So, in that case, it comes as a great hardship on the small holder. Again, it is only the small holder who is the occupier; it is only the small holder whose house is of a certain size who is exempt from this taxation; it is only the small holder who owns less than fifty acres all told who is exempt from this taxation. I put it parenthetically to the Government, How do they propose to ascertain whether a man has no more than fifty acres. Suppose a man has fifty acres, we will say, in the New Forest—if he has the misfortune to have a quarter of an acre in Kamschatka, or "elsewhere," then he must not claim exemption, because he has more than fifty acres altogether. The Act says "elsewhere." Again, take the case of the small holder, whose land is worth more than £75 an acre. By this Bill it is provided that if land has no more value than £75 an acre the small freeholder is exempt. But in my own Constituency there is any amount of land which is at present used for agricultural purposes, which as agricultural land would not be worth more than £1 or 30s. an acre, or, to buy, £25 or £35, but which, as a matter of fact, no owner would think of selling at that price, because he realises that there is a potential value outside and beyond it. I say it is unfair to levy duty on that potential value until it has at least been received, and it will cripple enormously the resources of many poor people if you put this burden upon them, so that they will have to pay on profits which they have never received. The next point is a very
66
important one, and it has reference to the valuation. Elaborate propositions are laid down for the conduct of the valuation. I understand that a list of something like 500 gentlemen has been prepared, who are to go into every part of the country to make the necessary valuations, and, I assume, to complete it within five years. I think their task is considerably bigger than perhaps they imagine. I may say in passing, in reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he need not in the least be disappointed about a valuation of Ireland, because if he refers to Clause 26 of the Bill, he will see that the Commissioners "shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause a valuation to be made of all land in the United Kingdom," and Ireland will have her share of the valuer and his attentions. What has the valuer to do? He has a task before him which I venture to predict even the most experienced valuer, in England at any rate, cannot contemplate with equanimity. Every piece of land in separate occupation is to be valued, down to the smallest area, the smallest piece of potato patch, the smallest allotment, and the valuer is to set forth figures as to the five separate elements of value. First of all, he has to arrive at the gross value, then at the site value, then at the total value, next the assessable site value, and eventually at the value of the land for agricultural purposes. Each has to be settled by the valuer on the very smallest area, and every tiny patch of land in this country which is in separate occupation will have to be valued in this way. Imagine the enormity, the practical impossibility of the task.
Armed for that duty, the valuer or the Commissioner has the power to demand of every owner all the facts in his possession with regard to every piece of land he holds. He can demand, and insist on obtaining, under a fine, first of all, a statement of the area, which in many cases would mean an expensive survey. He can demand and obtain the tenure of the land, and, worst of all, he can demand and obtain from the owners the price they have paid for the land in question. Many will absolutely decline to tell the price they have paid for any piece of land they hold. I put it to the House that no one would willingly agree to disclose the price he has paid for' any investment outside and apart from land, and this demand will be resisted and give rise to very great difficulties. This is an inquisitorial inquiry into matters of

67
the price, tenure, and family history and so forth of the land in question. Then these wretched valuers, to be scattered through England, have got to begin again and arrive at a revaluation every fifth year of all undeveloped land in this country. Five hundred valuers—I doubt if 5,000 valuers will suffice. The whole scheme is chimerical from the valuers' point of view—and I speak with some experience—and it is almost impossible to arrive at any satisfactory result on the extraordinary and difficult theories and propositions as to valuation which are laid down in this Bill. There will be endless litigation, greatly at the cost of those who have to wrestle with these valuers. Already there is the gravest dissatisfaction among small as well as large, and I am here particularly to speak on -behalf of the small holders this afternoon. On their behalf, I say, that these land taxation proposals are viewed by them with the greatest abhorrence and the greatest dissatisfaction. The more they see of them the more they dislike them, and the more they dislike the Budget, and particularly this part of it. For these reasons I am myself strongly opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that an opportunity will be given, in spite of the closure, to new Members coming fresh from the battle outside this House, to express in Committee their objections to its numerous details, and to criticise line by line, syllable by syllable, and comma by comma, the grave proposals which are embodied in this measure.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That to the end of the Question, "and to add the words," inasmuch as the announcement of this Bill has already done a cruel injury to more than one great Irish industry, and seriously shaken the confidence of the new occupying proprietors as to their future, and as it proposes to impose upon Ireland unjust additions to her already excessive taxation, the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
I am quite aware in moving the Amendment that it will have no immediate effect on the fate of this Bill, and that I shall be, as the French say, cutting water with a sword. It will, of course, be difficult for any Irishman to resist the imposition of this Budget in the name of Ireland, for the simple reason that it is Ireland's own representatives who have hauled down the
68
flag and sold the pass, and who, as the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin has just announced to us, will presently troop into the Lobby to vote down this Amendment. Ireland's grievances from this time forth will lie against those Gentleman, and not against the Tory Government of ten years ago, against whom the hon. and learned Member turned all his artillery. The grievance will not even lie against the present Government, because they have only taken over the keys of the Irish fortress from its faithless defenders, and they have not even paid them back as much as a bawbee for their surrender, not even so much as half a dozen Liberal votes on the sham Anderson Amendment the other night. Under these circumstances, any further resistance on our part is in the nature of a forlorn hope, but there are some of us in this House who have not been for the last thirty years altogether unaccustomed to taking part in forlorn hopes. Forlorn hopes somehow or another in the long run have a way of turning into victories. Although no doubt we cannot hope for any success in view of the announcement which has been made as to the destruction of the present Budget, we can at all events place it on record that there are some Irish Nationalist representatives who will not be consenting parties to the damning confession of the abandonment of Ireland's claim for relief from over-taxation, which beyond all doubt will be involved in the Irish vote for the Budget to-night.
The party behind me may have the power to accept this Budget, but time will tell whether Ireland will accept the Budget, or will accept the Irish Budgeteers. We shall see bye-and-bye whether Ireland will not repudiate as something very little short of an act of national apostasy the shameful surrender that has been made in the name of Ireland of her whole case that the present financial relations between the two countries are already crushing and intolerable, with her voluntarily taking up the fresh taxes which are imposed under this Budget, or rather imposed by Ireland's own representatives, because they have only to support this Amendment and the Budget Bill will be thrown into the waste-paper basket before this night is over. We had it in Ireland, as we thought, already fully established and decided by a Royal Commission containing the best among the most eminent of British financiers that even fifteen years ago the load of over taxation that was laid upon the shoulders of Ireland was by

69
£2,500,000 per year oppressive and unjust, and a violation of the engagements of the Act of Union. That charter of Irish liberty has been deliberately torn up in this House to-night by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). It is not the first time, I am sorry to say, that we have witnessed the painful scene, and the shameful scene of Irish Nationalist representatives getting up in this House as understudies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to suggest that Lord Welby, and Sir Robert Griffen, and Mr. Childers, and the rest of them, were all wrong in reporting that Ireland was overweighted in taxation, and in suggesting really that instead of these new taxes being any fresh grievance for Ireland that we ought really to go on our bended knees to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having resisted the temptation of putting, I think, £1,300,000 a year additional, for which undoubtedly he deserves some credit, for had he done so, he could have done so with the confidence that he would have been fully justified by the new school of national economics that has been introduced in Ireland. "What was the speech of the hon. and learned Member? Why, it was one prolonged panegyric of the greater portion of this Budget. If that is so, I want to know what was the meaning of all the splendid concessions that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) boasted at Liverpool and Tipperary that he could have secured, but has not secured.
Really, one sometimes begins to think, to listen to speeches from these benches, that it is a crime, almost a blasphemy, for an Irishman to stand up in this House and to suggest that the British Treasury is capable of even thinking of planting £2,000,000 per year on Ireland. It is actually claimed as a virtue for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his calculations as to Irish Spirit Duties broke down, after he has already half strangled one of the greatest of Irish industries, and that to which he looked for the greater portion of those £2,000,000. Now we are triumphantly told that it is all a mere bagatelle of £500,000 per year, and it is treated as a bagatelle by the men who would have made the welkin ring with indignation if Ireland was to have been taxed within one-fourth of that amount for the iniquitous purpose of financing land purchase and abolishing landlordism. This mere bagatelle of £500,000 per year is, in these Gentlemen's eyes, a mere beggarly gift from Ireland in gratitude for
70
the Old Age Pensions Act, That Old Age Pension Act has been referred to very often and thrown in our teeth pretty often, but it was not framed for the sake of Ireland. The representatives of Ireland had no more to do with producing that Act than, they had with producing Bailey's comet. That Act was rushed through this House hastily, and, as I think, unthinkingly, and to a very large, degree as party electioneering strategy; and it was rushed through this. House without the smallest consideration of the totally different circumstances of Ireland. I say that that Act, as it stands, will be an absolutely insuperable and insurmountable difficulty in the finances of any future Irish Parliament. That is the kind of apology that we are beginning to be accustomed to hear chanted from the Irish Benches to the glory of the British Treasury by gentlemen who affect to speak for Ireland. Apparently their position is that we ought to kiss the rod that scourges us and that we ought to be very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he has not made the scourge quite as severe as he might. I do not want to dwell on that point, which must be one of humiliation, and I might say of anguish, for every decent Irishman.
I desire to give the great mass of the Members from Ireland, who support and who are sponsors for this Budget, credit for an honest belief that in some extraordinary way they are not giving an insincere vote upon this Budget, but that they are in some singular way vindicating the rights and capacity of Irishmen. In my opinion that belief is one of the most mournful and most fantastic superstitions that ever fastened on the minds of representatives of our nation. In my poor judgment, at all events, they are by the action they are taking to-night doing as grave an injustice to Ireland's hopes of Home Rule as they are to her financial interests. Instead of battling against the Veto of the House of Lords by passing this Bill into law, in my judgment, they are interposing a far more formidable Veto to to Home Rule than the Veto of the House of Lords, and that is the Veto of Bankruptcy. The Veto of the House of Lords, and we have had a good deal of experience of it in the long run, is a far more soluble and more changeable thing and a more changeable obstacle than the financial scheme that will be stereotyped and petrified in this Act that Ireland is passing here to-night. I give hon. Members from Ireland credit for believing that they

71
are under some debt to the Government, because otherwise every vote that they would give for this Budget would be a lie, they would be voting for a Budget that they know in their hearts is in itself a cruel wrong and a betrayal of their country.
In my judgment the position in which they stand to-night is this, that the substantial effect of their bargain, or rather of their abject failure to make any bargain, is that we are not even to have Home Rule plus bankruptcy. We are to have national bankruptcy without Home Rule, and it is all to be the work of Ireland's own representatives. I do not wish to speak ill of men, many of whom were colleagues and comrades in many an olden fight, and we may possibly be again, because although our Irish quarrels are sometimes very hot, still those conflicts of opinion in Ireland are quite as legitimate and quite as disinterested as those of Englishmen, and are possibly a little more easily forgiven after the heat of the battle. But I do say, although we are at the present the minority in this House, and as we were a minority for many years in this House, but a minority that was right, and that very speedily became a majority, I do say that the men who will vote against this Amendment will not speak for Ireland, and I do say that before very long the world will understand the act of Ireland's representatives as an act of abyssmal folly, and that Ireland will repudiate it as a blow at her growing prosperity, from which she may not be able to recover for many a year, and she will repudiate it as an act of betrayal of her national interests, and an act which m fatuity is only second to that of the Irish representatives who voted for the Act of Union, and to that of the other Irish representatives who, I think it was in 1852 or 1853, voted for that most unfortunate measure of Mr. Gladstone's, for the spoliation and over-taxation of Ireland, which has never since been dropped from the Statute Book, and which is the only blot upon Mr. Gladstone's career and noble services to Ireland.
6.0 P.M.
The opposition of my Friends and myself to this Budget has been per fectly plain and straight from the beginning. We did not believe and we do not believe that by swallowing an unjust Budget we should be bringing Home Rule one hour nearer. We believe, on the contrary, that the party behind me (the Irish
72
Nationalist party) are on as hopelessly wrong lines in their way of winning Home Rule as they are in imagining that they are going to procure the success of Home Rule, if it comes, by confirming in an. even aggravated form a scheme of finance for Ireland which I should be glad to see the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. Redmond) or the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) take the responsibility for as Chancellor of an Irish Exchequer. We do not believe in crushing one of the few remaining great Irish national industries by way of a sort of by-product of the Government scheme of vengeance for the rejection of the English Licensing Bill. We have no patience with the dialectical discussions of the hon. and learned Member, in which it is now admitted that it will depend upon the obiter dicta of certain judges or Treasury valuators how far the property of Irish peasant proprietors is to be laid hold of under this Budget. We have no patience with the whole scheme of Death Duties, Stamp Duties, and general valuation by which it is in reality proposed to steal out of one pocket of the Irish peasant proprietors a great part, at all events, of the profits that they are at long last beginning to realise after a land war of thirty years' duration. But I shall not speak on that subject, the whole matter having been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. M. Healy) with an accuracy and a depth of knowledge that no man in this House could exceed. To me it is tragic to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the abysses of his blissful ignorance of Irish affairs, playing the game of the purchase blockers or purchase killers and sowing the seeds perhaps of a great yield of serious and perhaps endless trouble by these new imposts and hints of the nationalisation of land. In all probability it will end land purchase and future sales in Ireland.
We base our opposition to the Budget not upon this or that particular tax, but upon a national and international right to the autonomous and exceptional treatment that was guaranteed to us by the Act of Union and confirmed by a Royal Commission appointed by the party who are the authors of this Budget. Our position is that Ireland is an excessively poor agricultural country just struggling to its legs, chained to the wealthiest and most prosperous country in the world, and as utterly unable to bear the burden of that relationship to an Empire with a Budget of £160,000,000 or £170,000,000 a year as

73
a small fishing boat would be to take one of your tremendous warships in tow. All the old difficulties of Ireland, as church establishment, university education, county government, landlordism, are settled, or are on the way to settlement. There is only one question now remaining in dispute between these two countries; it as of the essence of any national settlement, namely, the question of pounds, shillings, and pence. It is simply a question of adjusting taxation as to how far the richest of all countries is to force the poorest to participate in your magnificent extravagances, or perhaps necessities. The first thing you have to learn about these crucial armaments of yours, which of course are the cause of these bloated Budgets, is that they are not necessary for the protection of our poverty, although no doubt they are necessary for the protection of your boundless wealth and commerce. You cannot argue this question as if it were one in which you could find a common denominator that would apply equally to Yorkshire or to Cork. Ireland is in my opinion on the high road to becoming a comparatively comfortable country for an agricultural country, and will be all the happier a country because it can never hope to be rich in the sense in which your great industrial communities are. But, believe me, the one thing in Ireland in which any really great Imperial statesmenship will find additional taxable material, will be the increase of Irish contentment, goodwill, and attachment to this country. That increment may not bring much in money to the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it may not help you to build many "Dreadnoughts," but it will certainly help you to man them, and it is just possible that the occasion may arise when that would be at least as valuable a contribution to Imperial defence as any wretched dividend of plunder that your Death Duties or Land Taxes can win out of the peasant proprietors of Ireland. At present I dare say it would be idle to suggest it, but I believe that whenever the great men of both British parties come together and set themselves to consider what Ireland can really do in the way of aiding the defence of this Empire they will find that their first consideration will have to be that these two countries must be treated as wholly separate entities, and, if not by totally separate Budgets, certainly by totally different categories of charges in the one Budget. For the present we can
74
only repudiate root and branch this whole financial scheme, aggravated still more as it is by this Budget, by which you are doing a thing most unwise for yourselves, as well as most unjust for Ireland. Already we have a taxation greater than that of at least four or five wholly independent countries in Europe which I could name, which have an army and a navy of their own.
I do not expect Britons on either side to understand at once the frame of mind of Irishmen, who are perfectly willing to le friendly to both British parties, and to the entire British people, but yet are determined not to make the interests of their country subservient to those of either one British party or the other. For the last twenty-five years some of my friends and I have had to face a good deal of unjust clamour from both sides of the House and from both parties in turn, but I do not think it has ever particularly daunted us. For the last six or seven years it has been the fate of some of us to have added the still keener and sharper ordeal of clamour equally unjust and unthinking from some of our own countrymen. I do not think that even that form of injustice will terrify us or make us doubt that we shall manage to live that down as well. You here in England have now, with the happiest results, come to understand the frame of mind of men in South Africa, who, four or five years ago, were battling you bravely in the field, and who are now among your best friends. By and by, whether we are here or not, you will come to understand, just as well, the necessity in your own highest interests as well as ours, of having a similar experience in regard to Ireland. As far as my Friends and I are concerned, we are determined to stand or fall by the principle of going to the utmost lengths of patience and of rational concession upon the basis of our common substantial interests and of our higher patriotic interests as well. For my part I will not rest the hope of the future of Ireland upon any mere politician's dodges or intrigues, but upon those solid interests which are as much the interests of this Empire as they are of Ireland. I will not leave the future of Irish nationality in the ignominious position of depending for its subsistence upon the funeral bakemeats of a land war which, thank God, is dead and gone, or, at all events, would have been dead and gone by this time but for the folly of Irishmen. However that may be, what I am perfectly satisfied about is, that in the whole course of our conduct in this matter—first as to

75
our willingness for friendly negotiations, and now as to fighting—we have ever consulted the best interests of our country. Whatever Irish representatives may have qualms and misgivings to-night in going into the Lobby against this Bill, all I can say is I have none. I shall, with a very easy conscience, go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. GILHOOLYseconded the Amendment.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There is no task more easy for the Members of this House to perform than to oppose the imposition of further taxation. Any Member is sure to please his constituents if he stands upon the floor of this Chamber to declare that they are too heavily burdened. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has shown a greater courage, for he has not only denounced the additional taxation that is imposed upon Ireland, but he has also denounced the system of old age pensions from which Ireland benefits, and for the sake of which, in large measure, this additional taxation is necessary. He tells us that over £2,000,000 which Ireland receives in old age pensions is the result merely of an electioneering measure—
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I said "in great part."
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In great part, and that the Irish Members had nothing to do with the passing of that Act. He said that it was not framed for the benefit of Ireland or to meet Irish grievances, and that, as a matter of fact, from the Irish point of view, it was an injury, for it would merely embarrass Irish finances if Ireland ever had a partially separate financial system. He places the British Government in a dilemma. If the Grants are refused, Ireland, we are told, is treated with pointed injustice; if the Grants are made, we are told that we are doing nothing but embarrass Irish finances. I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork whether he would have desired to see Ireland exempt from the Old Age Pensions Act? I do not think that his voice was ever raised to oppose the extension of that measure to the Irish people, and I do not think he would venture to get up in his place now and ask this House to pass a law to exclude the aged people of Ireland from the benefits of that ordinance. If that be so, let us see how the balance of the account really
76
does stand, for I agree with him that it is purely a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence as between the two countries. He declares that the additional burden cast upon Ireland by this Budget amounts to £2,000,000 per year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the House another estimate. His estimate is £435,000 per year. There is this difference between the two; that while the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supported by published figures showing in detail precisely how—
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is it supported by unpublished figures?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The figures have been laid before the House, and each item that makes up the £435,000 has been declared, and that is the difference between the estimate of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the estimate of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork. While the particulars of this £435,000 are given in all detail, the figure of £2,000,000 of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Cork is a peroration and nothing more, and is unsupported by one single fact or figure. He might as well have given a figure of three, four, or ten millions for all the influence it would have upon the House or the country. On the other hand, there is no doubt about the receipts—about the amount which goes to Ireland in pensions. It can be calculated week by week to a shilling. The amount, too, which goes to Ireland for assistance in other directions under this Budget has also been stated in detail by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork suggest that in return for these benefits, amounting to £2,800,000 yearly, Ireland ought to contribute nothing at all I That she has to receive this vast sum, and yet pay nothing to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of it1? Ireland is asked to pay, but, Sir, she is asked to pay in proportion to her capacity In exchange for this £2,800,000 receipts she is asked to make an expenditure of £435,000. In any other part of the United Kingdom, or part of the world except Cork, it would indeed be thought to be a good bargain to pay £400,000 odd and receive £2,800,000.
But I rise not only to reply to the hon. Member for Cork—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reply more fully to that speech—but also to say something in answer to the remarks with which this Debate was opened

77
by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). The right hon. Gentleman devoted himself mainly to the question of the Licence Duties, which last year he and I were painfully and perhaps too long familiar with. The case he especially presented to the House was that of a brewery company that distributed a certain sum to its ordinary shareholders in dividends. According to his figures that company would be called upon to pay as a Licence Duty a larger sum under this Budget than the shareholders would receive. I, of course, have been unable to enter into au examination of the figures, or to check them. Very many calculations which in the past have emanated from the trade— and I presume he has been furnished by the trade with these figures—have been found on examination to have been greatly exaggerated, and not to have taken into account counterbalancing circumstances that ought to have been considered.
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what figures were exaggerated?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Last year we had very many illustrations, especially those that were given again and again by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Holborn. He himself is a member of the trade and his figures were found on examination to have been totally inaccurate with regard to the Holborn Restaurant, Whitehall Court, and the London breweries. His figures were incapable of being substantiated in debate. I am not in a position to-day to dispute the figures which have been given by the right hon. Gentleman. What I do dispute is the assumption that a tax upon the liquor trade is necessarily paid out of the present profits of that trade. Taxes are not necessarily paid out of profits. They are an incident of the business which is being carried on. Partly, no doubt, they are paid out of profits. Partly they may be paid by economic production. Partly they may be paid by the adjustment of the quantity sold, or, in some cases, of prices. When the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues some years ago imposed an extra Beer Duty of Is. a barrel, drawing a sum of about £1,500,000 per annum from the trade, did they state at that time, or do they claim now, that that £1,500,000 every year came out of the pockets of the owners of ordinary shares of brewery companies? When the trade boasts, as it does
78
boast, that it pays the entire cost of the Navy, does it expect anyone to believe that the individual shareholders, and the individual directors, actually pay out of their own pockets year by year for our battleships and cruisers? That the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ayr Burghs supplies us every year, let us say, with a torpedo-boat destroyer?
Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: I never suggested that.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland perhaps supplies us with a cruiser? Obviously everyone knows that taxation is borne by business as a whole. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of the Licence Duty levied in any particular year on the brewery companies means the entire absorption of the dividends of the Ordinary shareholders of that company is as absurd as if I were to suggest that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ayr Burghs supplied us with a portion of our Navy every year. There is this further circumstance to be remembered. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that our Licence Duties involve a considerable increase on the scale that existed be fore. Obviously that is true. But two calculations can be drawn from that comparison. One is that our new scale is unduly high; the other conclusion is that the old scale was unduly low. I think that anyone who has impartially investigated the scale of Licence Duties that has existed in England for the last thirty years will say that, so far as the larger houses are concerned, it is unduly low. Ten years ago the late Sir Henry Camp-bell-Bannerman was askedwhere he would look for additional revenue if the State was not to impose a tax upon sugar. He declared that in his opinion the larger public-houses could well afford to pay additional licence duties, and that the then existing scale was anomalous, indefensible, and ought to be increased. That was long before the Licensing Bill of last year was even thought of; long before it was rejected by the House of Lords—a rejection which hon. Members opposite pretend is the cause of the increase of the Licence Duties.
Ten years ago the Leader of the Liberal party declared that it was in the direction I have noted that the State ought possibly to look for a larger revenue. A few years later the Royal Commission on Local

79
Taxation reported in favour of an increase of Licence Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Conservative Government (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), some years ago, while Chancellor, used these words:—
"The present scale of Licence Duties is utterly unfair to the smaller houses as compared with the bigger houses. The bigger houses might very well bear additional taxation. The large hotels should be very highly taxed."
No one would suggest that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach is a confiscator, or animated by those principles of robbery which hon. Gentlemen opposite are good enough to credit to His Majesty's Government. Yet Sir Michael Hicks-Beach declared, speaking as a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the scale of Licence Duties of the larger houses ought to be greatly increased. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that a scale of 50 per cent, on the rateable valuable is too high a scale? [HON Members: "Certainly."] Take a house, for example, rated at £50 a year, which may be doing a very considerable business. Is there anyone who would say that a Licence Duty of £25 is too much for the publican to pay on that house? That is the actual scale of duty which has been paid in this country for thirty years past on some houses, and the proposal is to apply to the larger houses the same rate of duty that has so long applied to the smaller ones. The houses with a rateable value of £500 per year obviously and certainly do a larger trade than the house of £50 a year, but the house of ten times the rateable value is only called upon to pay twice the duty of the small house of £50. The right hon. Gentleman declared in tones of indignation that the effect of our new duty must necessarily be to close vast numbers of public-houses throughout the country, and to turn great numbers of unoffending persons unemployed into the streets. I do not deny—I never have denied—that the effect of the new Licence Duty might be to close a certain number of houses—I do not think a large number. Any tax imposed upon any commodity must have an effect upon the sale of that commodity, whether it may be tea, sugar, or whatever it may be. If you impose a tax upon licences it must have some effect upon the number of licences taken out. When Mr. Gladstone imposed his new Licence Duties in 1880, moderate as they were, and they were universally admitted to be moderate, the effect was that a certain number of pub-
80
licans failed to take out licences. Everyone who is familiar with the trade is aware that at the present time there are a great number of houses that are uneconomic, which do no remunerative trade, and which are kept open merely for the purpose of receiving compensation under the Act of 1904; there is no doubt about that. Houses that would have been closed long ago if the Act of 1904 had not given them an inducement to continue so long, remain open in the hope that some benevolent compensation authority will ultimately suppress them and pay them considerable sums out of the Compensation Fund. As the House is aware, and rejoices in the fact, the consumption of alcoholic liquors has declined in recent years. In the last ten years there has been, on the average, a decrease of about 20 per cent. If the consumption of any other commodity declined 20 per cent., would not a certain number of the houses that supply that commodity be closed 1 If there was some rapid growth of vegetarian principles and the consumption of meat was to decline in a few years by 20 per cent., would there not be fewer butchers' shops? If by some successful application of the principle of physical culture the consumption of drugs was to decline among the population obviously the result would be that the number of drug shops would be diminished. Why should it be assumed that the liquor trade should be different from all other trades, and that although the consumption has declined by 20 per cent, in ten years the number of shops for the retail sale of liquor must always remain necessarily approximately the same?
I do not deny that some publicans may find the Licence Duties to supply the last inducement to them to discontinue the conduct of their individual houses; but I suggest to hon. Members it is no reason why the State should forego its revenue, that the trade keeps open an excessive number of retail outlets for the sale of its commodity beyond what the circumstances of the case require. There is indeed one hardship from which publicans might suffer as a. result of this Budget, or rather as a result of its rejection by the House of Lords and the long delay in its coming into operation. It will be a heavy burden upon the licensed trade to find the duties for the year 1909–10 in the month of May or June, and then again in the month of October to find an equal sum for the duties of the year 1910–11. The close approximation of the two dates

81
upon which the duties will have to be paid is due, not to the action of the Government, but to the action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Budget and in having given rise to this delay. Yet the Government are anxious to avoid, so far as it may be, the imposition of these hardships, which, it must be agreed, are hardships, upon the licensed trade of the country. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend is responsible for the finances of the year 1910–11, it is his intention to make provision in the Budget of this year for arranging that the duties of the year 1910-11 shall not be collected all at once in the month of October, when they fall due, but shall be paid by instalments over the greater part of the year, so that there shall not fall upon the trade two considerable sums of money to be paid in respect of a man's licence within the space of a few months. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) declared that our proposals struck a blow at commercial capital, struck a blow at the confidence of the business community in the operation of financial legislation.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes away from the Licence Duty, may I ask him whether it is proposed to extend the instalment payments for the 1910–11 licences to both countries?
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, certainly the provision in regard to the instalments will apply equally to the two countries. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced these proposals of ours as destroying the confidence of the business community and shaking financial credit. Hon. Members opposite always play one or other of two notes, either confiscation or revolution. First it is the one, and then it is the other. Any fiscal proposal of the Government to which hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed is confiscation. Any constitutional proposal to which they are opposed is revolution. The right hon. Gentleman said we ought to give inducements to capital to invest in the trade of the country, and we ought to take care not to discourage its investment in our national industries. I venture to suggest that so far as the liquor trade is concerned it is not to the national interests for the Government to give inducements for capital to flow into that industry. It would be far better, and more conducive to the permanent well-being of the country and the happiness of the
82
whole population, if the flow of national capital were directed into other productive movements instead of into the liquor trade of this country.
Mr. GEORGE CAVE: I rise for the purpose of dealing as well as I can with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General upon the subject of the new Licence Duties. The Postmaster-General began by disputing in general terms figures which were given last year by us, and which tended to show that the new duties would impose considerable hardships upon individuals. I do not know whether the Government really dispute that a heavy addition will be made by these duties, and that they will mean a severe loss to individuals engaged in the trade. I will only mention a few figures in regard to on-licences— I am not dealing at the moment with the charges upon manufacturers and wholesale dealers and off-licence holders. I want to give one or two figures relating to the holders of on-licences, who are specially hit by these duties. The total additional duty is put at £2,100,000 a year. Taking a certain class of on-licence holders—I will take the figures given by the hon. Member for Hud-dersfield (Mr. Sherwell)—he estimated that the average increase of these duties is 133 per cent., and he shows that 8,000 houses will have to pay an average increased duty of £45 per year; 1,600 houses an increase of £122; 1,000 houses an increase of £180, and 1,300 houses an increase of £190 or more a year.
These are serious new and sudden changes upon individual traders, and these figures are only averages. I shall now take some individual cases. I will only give a dozen figures out of some hundreds that might be mentioned. I first take half a dozen tied houses, and I shall verify every one of the figures. In one case the Licence Duty increases at once from £35 to £147; in another case from £40 to £196; in another from £45 to £245; in another from £50 to £275; in another from £55 to £325, and in the last case from £60 a year, the maximum, to £500 a year. These are all tied houses, and I know hon. Members opposite do not care about tied houses. I think they are wrong.
Let me give similar figures in regard to free houses, where the man pays every penny of the Licence Duty and has no company upon which he could fall back. I will take another half a dozen houses. In one case, there is an increase from £35 per year to £127 a year; in another from £45

83
to £200; in another from £50 to £275; in another from £55 to £330; in another from £60 to £800, and in another case from £60 a year to £1,000 a year. There you have an enormous, most ruinous and most unjust increase in the taxation of one individual. Whatever may be your views as to the capacity of that trade for bearing further taxation, I do say there are ways less unfair than this to tax the trade.
We proposed again and again last year that if you wanted more taxation upon intoxicating liquors you should put a tax upon purchases or sales, so that the increased duty might be, as the right hon. Gentleman says it ought to be, put upon the consumer, but it is grossly unfair to put this particular tax upon certain traders who cannot recoup themselves by the ordinary methods by which other people can recoup their losses. These are figures that mean real injustice, and real ruin to individuals. I think that the matter ought to have a little further consideration. These men paid their yearly contribution in years past, amounting in the whole to £1,000,000, to a Compensation Fund set up for the purpose of insuring them against the loss of their licences. Now you are going to make that fund a mere mockery. You do not in terms take away their licences, but you put a charge upon them so heavy that they cannot possibly pay it, and they will have to drop their licences, and they will have no right to resort to the Compensation Fund. Some of them, the ante-1869 beerhouses, have what is called a Parliamentary title and right to their licences. You are going to put upon these men, who have paid taxes hitherto of £3 10s. a year, a charge equal to one-third of their annual valuation, amounting in many cases to £100 a year and more. Therefore, indirectly, you are going to take from these people the title that you admit is at present a statutory title. The right hon. Gentleman says these charges need not be paid out of profit. In this case that is not true. If you put a charge upon an article it can generally be recovered by adding it to the sale price, but in this case you put it upon a man who cannot recoup himself, because you charge only one channel of supply while, you leave open the others. Off-licence holders, clubs, and so on get off, while you put a heavy charge upon one of the channels of supply. He has to compete with all the other sellers who have licences of other kinds, and, therefore, he cannot put the charges on the consumer. These charges will
84
fall upon the individual. The Postmaster-General says, "Oh, that is all nonsense. These charges are not too high, and the trade will be able to bear them." The Government's own statements show that they do not believe that to be the fact. The statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows that to be the case, because, if he had estimated that all the present houses would pay these duties, he would have put his total very much higher. His estimate shows that he expects a wastage and the closing of a very large number of houses indeed. But apart from that, we have declaration after declaration from Members of the Government, and we have had a further one just recently, to the effect that these heavy duties are not imposed for the purpose of revenue, but for the declared purpose of closing public-houses. We have had that asserted in speech after speech from Members of the Government in the discussions on the Licensing Bill, but I think the most open declaration came from the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said:—
"The licences are intended not only to raise money, but indirectly, by the very act of raising money by taxing licences, to effect a reduction of superfluous licences."
In other words the object of this tax is not to get money so much as to close houses, and by what you call "the economic check" — which of course, means charging a man so much that he cannot go on—by that artificial check, you propose to attain the end that you tried to attain under the Licensing Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says this is just the same thing. He says, if you put a tax upon butchers, some of them will have to shut up. Let the Government try it on the butchers or on any other trade, and they will soon be told that they are doing something unjust. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very glad to support taxes which, by the express declaration of Ministers, will put upon individuals so harsh a burden that they cannot bear it, and must submit to ruin. So much about the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General upon the general matter.
I want to say a few words now upon a matter of immediate interest, and that is the retrospective character of these duties. We are going into Committee on this Bill to-morrow, and I should like to know exactly what the Government propose to do. In England these licences were granted last October—that is the on-

85
licences—for twelve months, therefore, if you leave them alone, they will run until next October. This Bill proposes that every one of those licences shall be cut short and taken away on 30th June next, and that if a man wants to renew his Excise licence from 30th June for the remainder of the current year to 30th September, he will have to pay upon that three months' renewal the whole of the difference between the old duty and the new duty. In the case of a man whose duty will be £1,000 a year he must pay the difference between £60 and a £1,000 a year, and he must pay that on 30th June as a condition of getting his licence for the remaining three months. Therefore, you have granted the man a licence for a year, and you are going to take it away after nine months, and make him pay a heavy charge for three months. That is about as great a breach of faith as you could possibly commit, but quite apart from the question of a breach of contract, see what this means in the year 1910. It means that where as under the existing law the trade would pay in October Licence Duties amounting to about £2,200,000, under this Bill they must pay £2,100,000 in June—
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not for the on-licences.
Mr. CAVE: Instead of paying £2,200,000 this year under this Bill they will be called upon to pay £6,000,000 this year.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
Mr. CAVE: Yes; roughly, it is right to say they will pay £6,000,000, and pay it practically within the three months between the end of June and September. That is the effect upon the trade as a whole. I think that is a great harship upon tied-houses and those who hold brewery securities. My right hon. Friend went into this point so fully that I need not say anything more about it because all of us have seen privately the great loss to individuals who have put their money in these shares. But apart from this there is a gross injustice to the holders of free houses. I have never been reluctant to stand up for those engaged in this trade, although I have no kind of interest in the matter, my only connection with the trade being as a magistrate. I think that a grievous injustice is being done by these proposals. Only this morning I had particulars of a case sent to me by a free licence holder,
86
who says he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, sending him a copy of his letter.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Where from?
Mr. CAVE: From Twickenham. He gives these figures:—
"I desire to place before you shortly the effect the; proposed Licence Duties will have upon this house, which is absolutely free and untied to brewer or distiller. I purchased the lease of about seventy years at £125, in 1906, for £6,850, and valuations amounting to over £1,000 more, and Stamp Duty was duly paid to the State. The present income is £40 and £34 the compensation levy, which I have entirely to bear. The assessment is £266. Under the new duties, I understand I shall have to pay in June £131 (less £40), and £ 131 in October, a net amount of £222. The profits for the past year are £237 before charging any interest on capital or repairs which should have been done, but postponed. As the trade is falling, the profits must be less this year. The inevitable result must be that the house will be closed and all the money lost, as unlicensed it would not fetch the rent for other purposes, There must be hundreds of others in a similar position."
So that this man will have to pay this year Licence Duties equal to the whole of his I profits for the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer probably knows more than I do about this case, but I have seen many more such cases. Another man who gives his name wrote a letter in the Press the other day, and the facts can be tested. This is also the case of a free house. He says:—
"I have been a member of the trade for a number of years, as my father was and all the members of my family are. We have acquired the freehold of these premises and by dint of steady application, hard work, and thrift, extending over a long period, have been enabled to hold it entirely free from encumbrances of any sort. It is, consequently, what is popularly known as a 'free' house. The effect of these Budget proposals upon us is that our present maximum Licence Duty of £60 is raised to £1,000, being half of the amount at which we are assessed for rating purposes. We shall have to pay this £1,000 on July 1st, less the £00 already paid, and in October next—unless in the meantime the scale should be altered by fresh legislation—another £1,000 will become payable for the ensuing year. So that there will then have been extracted from us close upon £2,000 for Licence Duties within a single year."
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Gentleman really ought not to quote a case like that, because he knows perfectly well that nobody is charged Licence Duty up to £1,000 for a public-house.
Mr. CAVE: I was only quoting the letter. I am going to deal with that point. He will have to pay a £1,000 on 1st July and another £1,000 in October, and, therefore, he will have to pay close upon £2,000 Licence Duties in a single year.
Mr LLOYD-GEORGE: No.
Mr. CAVE: I know a man assessed under £500 has the option of paying upon the

87
annual value or upon the proportion of his annual licence value, but it must not be assumed that that option is a benefit to everyone, because there are many cases where it will be no benefit at all. In any case the minimum is £250 a year, and in this case the man will have to pay £500 this year, at any rate, instead of £60.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUELdissented.
Mr. CAVE: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to be fair. I endeavoured to show that the publicans would not be required to pay this October for their Licence Duties for 1910–11 in consideration of the fact that they have already paid in June the greater part of their duties for last year, and a large part of that payment would be postponed.
Mr CAVE: I was only reading the letter. Apart from these particular figures you cannot deny that the retrospective effect of this duty will prove a great hardship upon many members of the trade. In many cases there will be no chance of the publicans recouping themselves this year the amount they will have to pay in June, because they have not put up their prices. I know the price of beer was put up in London for about four months, and the effect was not very encouraging, because I am told that sales went down 15 per cent., and what they gained in price they lost in sales.
7.0 P.M.
So that method of recouping themselves which was tried in one part of the country only was tried without success. I want to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the recent defence which he gave for these high duties. Speaking of the Spirit Duty in May last year, he said:—
"This is an experiment which enables the retailer to take it off the consumer. I have done it deliberately, because I have not thought it fair in cases of this kind to put on the tax in a way that would embarrass the trade and make it very difficult for them to pass it on to the consumer. Here they are able to do it. It is fair to them. It not only enables them to pass it on to the consumer, but it enables the retailer to charge practically the increased Licence Duty on his whisky in most cases, and he is doing it."
Recognising that this charge for increased Licence Duty is very heavy, the right hon. Gentleman said, "You can recoup yourselves by an extra charge en spirits, and in that way you can get the tax." The result of the increased charge
88
on spirits, however, has been to enormously decrease the sales of spirits. The estimated falling off in the revenue in that year is something very nearly approaching £3,000,000, which of course means enormously decreased sales. There has therefore been no recouping in that way of the loss, and I think the fact that that consolation, so administered by the Chancellor to these people, has completely failed and broken down is some reason why, as a fair-minded man, he should reconsider the matter, and say whether this enormous charge ought to be made retrospective, so that the whole of one year's charge, at all events, must be paid in cash on the 30th June.
There is another fact I should like to mention, and that is that, as between the different parts of the kingdom, this Bill does not act quite fairly. Whether it is due to the influence of Scotch Members in the Cabinet, or to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. George Younger) I do not know, but the fact is that whilst as regards England and Ireland the new duties date back to October, as regards Scotland they only date back to 31st December. The English people will have to pay twelve months' retrospective tax, and the Scotch publicans will only have to pay nine months' retrospective tax. I do not grudge Scotland the particular advantage which it has got, but I think England ought to have the same advantage. I do not think the Government can defend taxing the English on-licence holder in this way and letting off the Scotch licence holder. I think at the very least you ought to advance the date for England to 31st December, and I should rather say you ought to advance the date for the whole country to a still later date. You have caused this injustice, because it is an injustice, specially by the retrospective action of these duties. It is an injustice which ought to be redressed, and it can be redressed, because the Chancellor was very proud the other day of having an estimated realised surplus of £2,900,000 on the last financial year. With that in hand, ought not the Government to reconsider the question of making this very heavy tax retrospective?
I am glad to hear that at all events the Government have realised there is some hardship in the matter, and that they are going to make some concession. I should like to know, and I hope we may know before this Debate closes, in all its details,

89
what that concession is. Under the Bill as it stands, if the duty exceeds a certain amount it is payable in instalments, half at the end of September and half next March, so that there is already a provision for postponing part of the duty. We should all like to know what further provision the Government intend to make. I do press upon the House that they must meet this very real and very genuine grievance. Financially, they can afford to do it, but, apart altogether from financial reasons, I do submit to the House that in common fairness and justice this grievance ought to be met. They ought not for whatever reasons of policy, whether for the sake of a temperance measure or for any other reason which may be in their minds, to pursue their public ends at the cost of a great injustice to individual trades, and they ought to treat this trade, so far as the traders are concerned, as they treat any other trade. Tax it if you please, but tax it fairly and with regard to the position of individuals and to what individuals can pay. Do not by means of your Budget bring very great loss and misery and even ruin to a very large number of persons.
Sir THOMAS WHITTAKER: Before I refer generally to what has been said by the hon. Member, I should like to say one or two words about the position taken up by the Irish Nationalist Members. With regard to the point they make as to the over-taxation of Ireland, I have always felt there is not such a substantial case there as they make out. I feel that the difference is one not of nationalities, but of classes, Any man who goes from this country to live in Ireland, and has the same income and the same kind of expenditure, will not pay a penny more taxation in Ireland than here, and any Irishman, coming to live here and spending the same income in the same way, will not pay one penny less taxation here than there. There is no difference in the taxation of the two countries. Hon. Members, as I understand it, base their claim on the Act of Union. My opinion as a layman is not worth much, but I have always felt, as the result of my investigations, that there is no claim on the Act of Union. The fact is that it is a question of the taxation on poor people as compared with rich people, and Ireland, having a larger proportion of poor people, suffers if there be any grievance of that kind. It is not a question of nationalities, but of classes. If there be a grievance to rectify, it needs rectifying by moderating the taxes on the poorer classes, and that would benefit the people
90
in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is not an injustice which requires rectifying, in Ireland alone; it requires rectifying throughout the United Kingdom.
I agree fully, and I think this is the key to the position, that poor people and poor countries obviously cannot spend as much as rich ones, and the remedy is that we must tax the rich people more. Expenditure which is justifiable for rich people is not justifiable for poor ones, and in the same way expenditure which is justifiable for rich countries is not justifiable for poor ones. When you have expenditure which is justifiable for a wealthy country, you must take care that the wealthy people in that country pay for it. As a poor country cannot afford luxurious expenditure, so poor people in a rich country cannot afford luxurious expenditure; and when you show that a country as a whole can afford luxurious expenditure, that does not prove that the poor people in that country can afford that expenditure. That is one good point in the Budget; it puts the burden upon the well-to-do.
I agree that the fact that this Budget is largely required to meet expenditure on old age pensions does justify putting a certain amount of taxation upon the poor people in this country, but it puts it moderately, and it puts it on luxuries which, if needs be, need not be bought. I also agree, and I think this is a strong point with our Irish friends, that their country would be much more cheaply governed under Home Rule. They are tied to a rich people, but we ought not to tax poor people, whether in Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, because we are a wealthy country. We must see that the expenditure we incur because we are a wealthy country is put upon the backs of the well-to-do, who can afford that expenditure.
With regard to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) as to the price of Consols, I do venture to say that discussing and using the price of Consols in a party attack is a very dangerous business and is a very dangerous weapon. The price of Consols varies very much owing to reasons with which parties have nothing to do, and if either party attempts to attribute the fall in the price of Consols to the action of their opponents, they are very apt to be caught by their own arguments. The right hon. Gentleman says that the fall in the price of Consols is due to the legislation of the Government, and more especially

91
to speeches which have been made, and he also points out that the price of London County Council Stock has not fallen at the same rate. If anything is being done or said to affect the security or the stability of this country, it would affect London County Council Stock more than Consols.
Mr. BONAR LAW: They have a Unionist majority there.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: If securities are to be affected by legislation here and by speeches by Liberal politicians, they will not be saved because you have a Unionist majority on the London County Council. Reference was made to the comparative prices of British and foreign securities, but comparing the highest prices in 1905 with the lowest in 1909, I find that practically all the principal securities of the world—the Three per Cent. Securities—have pretty substantially fallen. I find that Consols fell from 92, the highest price in 1905, when we had the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to 82, the lowest price in 1909; but I also find that Canadian Three per Cents, fell from 101 to 90, French Rentes (3 per cent.) from 100 to 95¾ in 1909—
Sir FREDERICK BANBURYdissented.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: The price of French Rentes on Saturday was 97½, and German Threes fell from 91 in 1905 to 81¾ in 1909. There was a general fall in all the securities, but it is true British securities have had a somewhat further fall this year than others. Is it surprising when, owing to the action of the House of Lords, our Government have had to go into the money market and borrow very freely indeed? I venture to suggest it is a marvellous testimony to the stability of the financial position of the nation that we have been able to pass through this financial crisis with so small an effect on the price of securities. One tiling which does affect the price of securities is heavy taxation, and I have yet to learn if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power that our taxation would have been less. Indeed they are attacking us because we are not spending more on the Navy and the Army. When they refer to legislation sending down the price of Government securities, let us remember what happened when they were in power. The right hon. Gentleman touched on the South African War. The expenditure on that sent down the price
92
of Government securities very heavily. In addition to that, they altered the rate of interest, and that had an effect, to a certain extent, on Consols. But they also extended the scope of Trustee Securities, and when you have an enormous volume of valuable securities thus brought in for investment in the market naturally the price of such securities as Consols fall. That was the result of the action of the Government of that day. I do not blame them for it. They were responsible for it, of course. What I do suggest is that it is a rather dangerous weapon to attempt to make party capital out of the price of Consols.
May I refer to the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire gave of a brewery company which is to be brought into dire distress on account of the Licence Duties. It is a company which divided—and the word divided is important—£28,000 last year in paying a dividend of 2½ per cent. We are told that the extra Licence Duties will amount to £40,000, and that that will wipe out the amount paid in dividend. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give the name of the brewery, and in the short time at my disposal I have looked up some particulars in regard to it. I find that that brewery company has been accustomed for some years past to write down an exceptionally large amount, and in last year's account they wrote off £142,000 out of profits for debts and depreciation. [An HON. Member: "In one year?"] Yes, in one year, and, therefore, £20,000 is only a part of a profit they made in that year.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quoted this case because I had been supplied with information with regard to it. It occurred to me also that it was a concern which was soundly managed, and, therefore, probably in a better position than most breweries to bear the burden. The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly reproached other brewers for not making similar provision. He has said that they ought to have devoted more of their profits in the way that this particular company has done.
Sir T. WHITTAKER: I have no doubt that this writing-off is quite proper, but for the last two years it has been, in the case of this company, very heavy indeed. It has all had to come out of profits, and my point is that if this company is in trouble it is not because of the extra Licence Duties, but because of the very large

93
amount it finds it necessary to write off. One of its troubles is that the consumption of drink in this country has diminished; but then other trades have likewise suffered from depression, and I want to know are we to tax those other trades in order that the liquor trade may escape? What is the general condition? The increase which is being made in the Licence Duty is £2,100,000 a year. What was the expenditure on liquor last year—a low year? It was £155,000,000. The increased duty represents an increase of £1 7s. per cent. on the retail price of the liquor sold. The total charge for Licence Duties would be about £4,000,000, and that means about 2½ per cent. on the total turnover of the trade. These are the Licence Duties taken as a whole, but all Licence Duties do not fall on public houses. There are the wholesale manufacturers' licences and the brewers' charges, which go to make up the whole total of about £4,000,000. Will anybody suggest that 2| per cent, on the retail price is an extravagant charge for this country to make on a great monopoly? Again, during the last twenty-five years the number of licensed houses in this country has very largely diminished, and, as the number diminishes, the remaining houses become worth more money. In England and Wales, in the last twenty-five years there has been a diminution of 13,000 on-licences. Last year there was spent on liquor in the United Kingdom £10,000,000 sterling more than twenty-five years before; thus we have an additional expenditure of £10,000,000, and 13,000 fewer houses to share it. These other houses should, therefore, possess a greater value. The money the Government require has to come from somewhere. This is a long-neglected source of revenue. It is a trade which has enjoyed an enormous privilege of monopoly and profits in the past. The time has come when the nation wants money, and it looks to get it not by a penal charge but a charge of £1 7s. per cent. on the retail income. This Budget will enable us to get down to a better basis for the Licence Duties. They should be based on the amount of liquor sold, and I am sure the change which has been made in levying these Licence Duties will, in the long run, be far more equitable than it has proved in the past.
I come to the effect of the tax on spirits. The diminution in the consumption of spirits has not by any means been entirely due to the additional taxation. The reduced
94
expenditure on liquor of all kinds in the United Kingdom last year as compared with the year before was £6,000,000, but that was nothing exceptional, because, in 1908, the expenditure on liquor fell by £6,000,000 as compared with the previous year. In 1905 there was a fall of £4,000,000 as compared with the year previous; in 1904 a fall of £6,000,000, and in 1903 a fall of £5,000,000 as compared with the preceding twelve months. Therefore the diminution in the expenditure on liquor last year was obviously not necessarily due to the new taxes. There was less consumption of alcohol. They paid a higher price for their spirits, but they got less alcohol for their money, and that was why it hit the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The actual expenditure was, I believe, pretty well as much as it would have been if there had not been the increased taxation. I do not want to trespass too long on the time of the House, but I should like to say a word on the Land Taxes. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will both remember the position I took up when these taxes were introduced, and I have said since in my own Constituency that the modifications which were made in those taxes during the time the Budget was passing through the House dealt with a very large proportion of the criticisms I offered, and even at this late hour I should like to pay my tribute to the good temper displayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during those Debates. My criticisms were three: First, I doubted the wisdom of including the Land Taxes in the Budget, not because I disapproved of the tax on increment value—I have always advocated that—I advocated it m my election address in 1892, and I have voted for every Bill brought into this House in regard to it, but I disapproved because the Budget was hitting a lot of people in other directions, and I therefore doubted the wisdom of putting more taxes upon them. I also felt that the proposals needed a good deal of consideration and amendment. Indeed, they were seriously amended in the House. When the Budget came in the Land Clauses portion occupied nineteen pages. It now occupies forty-one. Twenty-two pages added to the Land Clauses alone represents substantial change and serious amendment. With regard to the proposals of those who are known as Land Taxers, they are, in my opinion, to put it mildly, rubbish. This Budget

95
does not embody the proposals of what is known as kind taxation at all. If you diminish rates rents will rise. If you increase rates rents will fall, and that means that the landlord bears the burden. The landlord bears it every time the tenancy is adjusted; he is bound evidently to do so. My suggestion is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen need not be alarmed at taxes of this kind. They will not seriously affect property if they be justly levied on the person who enjoys at the time the beneficial interest in that property. The danger is when you break contracts and do not levy the taxes on the person enjoying the immediate benefit of the property of other people. This Budget does not rip up contracts. It respects contracts and puts the tax upon the person who is enjoying the beneficial interest at the time. I contend very strongly that any increment in the value of land owing to the growth and expenditure of the community, and not owing to the expenditure of the owner of it, is a legitimate subject of taxation, and if you only tax it when he has got it—when he has in his hand the increased value, or can get it by selling the property—you are doing no injustice to anybody. I admit that one result of these provisions has been to affect the value and price of property, but I hold that that result has been brought about not by a clear understanding of the proposals themselves, but by misconceptions and exaggerations, which have been circulated on one hand by the opponents of the measure and on the other by the extreme advocates of land taxation. Between them they have scared the property owners and done much harm, but there is no need for alarm or outcry, and I think hon. Members opposite will find in this case, as they have found in others, that when this tax has got into operation they are not suffering anything like so much as they think will be the result.
As to the Super-tax and Death Duties, I think there is a general admission that they are sound. It has been suggested, however, that the estates for Death Duties are ceasing to show an increasing total. That is so, but it is mainly owing to the fall which has taken place in recent years in the value of property and the value of securities, and has nothing to do with anything which we are discussing. Apart front that, there has been a considerable drop in the value of properties and securities. Consols, for instance, have fallen from 114 to 80; and if a man holds Consols
96
it is obvious that his estate will be returned at very much less, although he is holding the same amount of Consols. The decrease, or the stationary position in the total, has been largely owing to the fall in the value of securities. I think this Budget holds out a very great prospect to us in the next year. Personally I do not look forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposing any very serious increase of taxation next year, and my opinion is that his much-talked-of Whisky Tax will yield a good deal more next year than it has done this year. We shall not have these withdrawals in anticipation of the Budget which took place this year. The trade of the country is growing, and as the trade of the country grows, we may expect an increase of 2 or 3 per cent. in our revenue. Then we shall come in next year for the whole yield of the new taxes which we had not last year, and, again, this year we shall not have two Easters, as we did last year; we shall not have one in this financial year. I think that, as a whole, the financial operations of the year are a great triumph for Free Trade, and whatever may be our individual views of details here and there, it will be found, I think, that the Members who sit on these benches and those who support them in the country are solid against the fallacies and follies of Tariff Reform.
Mr. A. L. HORNER: As a new Member I rise with diffidence to intervene in this Debate. My reason for doing so is as an Irish Unionist and as Member for an Irish agricultural constituency, to enter my protest on behalf of the Irish agricultural community against the heavy additional burdens which this Bill seeks to impose upon them. What has been the attitude of the Irish Nationalist party upon the taxation of Ireland since 1896? Repeatedly in this House and on thousands of platforms in this country and abroad, it has been asserted by them that Ireland contributes between two and three million pounds more than her fair share to the joint taxation of the United Kingdom. Speaking in the Committee stage of this Bill last year, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) put the case thus:—
"The Act of Union seems to me to be absolutely forgotten by every Chancellor of the Exchequer when he sits down to prepare his Budget. That Act which was, according to English opinion and English declaration, not merely an Act of Parliament, but was in the nature of a treaty between two sovereign Parliaments, and between two nations, provided that Ireland was taxed only in accordance with her taxable capacity as compared with Great Britain, and it was specially provided that if the Exchequers became amalgamated as they did

97
in 1817, and if taxation became indiscriminate for the two countries, there should be exemptions and abatements for Ireland, so as to make sure that she would never be called upon to pay more than her fair share. That treaty, as England has always called it, has been persistently neglected and disregarded and shamefully violated by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer."
The hon. and learned Gentleman used no such language towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. He went on on that occasion to say:—
"The Financial Relations Commission which sat in 1894–5, reported that, according to the spirit and letter of the Act of Union, Ireland had been systematically overtaxed, and on the figures of 1894–5, that she was being overtaxed to the extent of between two and three millions a year"
What has been the attitude of the Liberal party, the so-called friends of Ireland up to the introduction of the present Budget? In the same speech, the same hon. and learned Gentleman said:—
"When a discussion took place on the Report of that Commission in this House the entire Liberal party voted with us in accepting the Report and demanding that redress should be given. In a memorable speech, which I will never forget so long as I live, the Prime Minister in 1897, made a remarkable declaration, in the course of which he said he found no man to really dispute the findings of the Commission, that the real facts were that Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of two-and-a-half million pounds per year. Not only has the Report of that Commission been disregarded, but the taxation of Ireland has been increased by millions since that day."
We hear now that although there was no bargain between the Government and that section of the Nationalist party which is led by the hon. and learned Gentleman, both are somehow in agreement that, although Ireland is, according to themselves, groaning under an excessive taxation, she is to have an additional burden cast upon her by this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite candid as to his altered and inconsistent position. But no explanation whatever is forthcoming as to the inconsistencies of the Liberal party. He was, he said, in a position to get concessions from this Government—a sympathetic Government—upon this question of rural taxation. Why has he not done so? Surely the ambiguous statement of the Prime Minister, "the remarkable declaration" made a few evenings ago in this House about guarantees is a very intangible thing to offer to the Irish people as a substitute for at least £3,000,000 a year of over-taxation. They have thrown over their position on the Budget on the plea that the question of the Veto is the supreme issue for them, because it means Home Rule for Ireland. But if Home Rule as obtained it will be upon the basis of the additional taxation now imposed, whereas if Home Rule is not obtained the present tactics—and this is a Government of tacticians—of that sec-
98
tion of the Irish Nationalist party which supports the Government is the merest folly. I pass from that aspect of the question, as it is one with which I as a Unionist have little to do. There is the broader question, namely, that we have a Bill now being driven through Parliament which vitally affects the lives and well-being of every person in the country, and yet the voice of the country is against it. There is not a single representative from Ireland, be he Unionist or Nationalist—the Liberal party is now extinct in that country—whose constituency is not against this Budget. Not a single representative public body in Ireland has passed a resolution in favour of it. Hundreds of resolutions all over Ireland have been passed against it.
I will briefly refer to and summarise two or three of the objections from the Irish farmer's point of view. The policy of all parties in this House has been to make the Irish tenant-farmer the owner of his holding. The taxes that are aimed at the dukes and the land-owning classes in Great Britain will fall in future upon the peasant proprietor. Our only Irish dukes have sold their estates to their tenants, and can laugh at the ineffectual attempts of the Budget to touch them. But the people who were formerly their tenants will in future bear the burden. The moment this Bill passes, the tenant farmer, where he has not bought out, or the new owner where he has, will have an indirect tax of no inconsiderable amount to meet in fighting the valuation of his holding. A new valuation and a new system of valuation will be made under this Bill. Every piece of land will be valued, whether it is building land, agricultural land, grazing land, waste, mountain, or garden. It must be valued under Section 25 for site value, gross value, full site value, total value, assessable site value, and original site value. There is no definition of "value" except so far as it is defined to be the value if sold at the time in the open market by a willing seller. Every occupier of land, therefore, will be put to the cost of fighting this difficult and intricate question, for he will not readily be satisfied with valuation which the fancy or caprice of the Inland Revenue Valuer may fix. We can form some idea of the enormous cost of this valuation from the fact that, in fixing fair rents alone in Ireland, the Treasury and the litigants have spent something like £4,000,000. There will be 600,000 new separate valuations of agricultural holdings.

99
As regards the Increment Tax, I wish to associate myself with every word which my right hon. and learned Friend, the junior Member for Dublin University, said on Wednesday evening. Everyone knows that a vast amount of agricultural land is sold every day in Ireland for prices which exceed its value for agricultural purposes, and this enhanced price will be subject to Increment Duty. As to the additional Stamp Duty, I will take a case in point, to show the undue and vexatious severity of the tax. Take the case of a farm of forty acres, held under a judicial rent of £35, and Poor Law valuation, and suppose the market value to be £650. On the sale of that farm the Stamp Duty will be increased from £3 5s. to £6 10s. If a voluntary assignment, exclusive of course of marriage settlements, is made by the owner of the holding to his son or daughter, whereas now it is subject to a 10s. tax, it will be subject in future to a tax of £6 10s., or thirteen times as much. That is a clear illustration of thousands of transactions which will take place in Ireland every year. But take the same farm if it is bought out, and the State has advanced £850 for its purchase, and if the owner wishes to sell the farm, the Stamp Duty will not be £7 10s. as it is now, but £15, and if he wants voluntarily to convey it to his son or daughter, always excluding marriage settlements, instead of being 10s. it will be subject to a duty of £15, or thirty times as much. There is not much jargon about these figures. They illustrate what will take place in tens of thousands of cases every year.
Take the Death Duties. I have the statement issued by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland a short time ago, and I think hon. Members will surely admit the impartiality of that great society. Supposing a farm of fifty acres was bought out under the Purchase Act, we may assume, as a fair average, that the tenant's interest in the farm will be £600, and there may be £450 worth of stock, agricultural produce, etc. Under the new Finance Bill the Death Duties payable will be £31 10s. Hitherto their value for duty would have been £450 only, and the duty would have been £2 10s. only, or £29 less. In other words, the new Bill imposes a liability of more than twelve times as much as before on a fifty acre farm. I quite admit that the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) is quite correct in regard to the provisions of Section 51, Sub-section (2) when the assets
100
are valued for £300 or £500. You have, therefore, a state of things which is anomalous and unjust to the farmers of Ireland. On the one hand you have a great Department of the State, the Land Court, with elaborate and expensive machinery set up to advance public money for the benefit of tenants and tenant-farmers. On the other hand, you have another great Department of the State, the Inland Revenue authority, with equally elaborate and expensive machinery, set up to deprive those owners of the very advantages which the State has given to them. Could absurdity in legislation go further?
One word with regard to the old age pension theory which has been advocated to-day by the Postmaster-General. That very argument is in itself an admission that the taxation, so far as Ireland is concerned, that is going to be imposed by this Bill would be unjust and unfair but for the old age pensions. But so long as Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom surely she is as much entitled to old age pensions as are the inhabitants of Yorkshire or even of Wales. The fallacy of the argumunt of the Postmaster-General is obvious if one only examines the figures submitted to the House on 10th March by the Secretary to the Treasury. Seventy years ago the population of Ireland was 8,000,000, or a little more, and the population of Great Britain was 18,000,000. To-day the population in Ireland is only half of that, and the population in Great Britain has doubled. You must compare the figures with seventy years ago in order to get at the real test, and so compare the amount per head that we in Ireland are entitled to just as you in England are, and we find that, judged by that test, Ireland is getting per head less actually than the old age pensioners in Great Britain. This anomaly will rectify itself in time. There is no provision in the Bill that if it does decrease the taxation imposed by the Bill will decrease proportionately. For these and other reasons which I hold in common with hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, I shall vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. J. E. SUTTON: I have been sent here from a very important Constituency for the purpose of supporting the provisions of the Bill, and personally, I should like them to have gone much further than they do. I say an important constituency, because it was represented by the Leader of the Opposition for over twenty years;

101
but the democracy of this country is taking a different view from what it did during those twenty years. On two questions alone have I been sent here, and one of them is this Bill. I have been surprised to hear statements made in this Debate by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if the Bill is passed it will be the means of causing more unemployment. To my mind, if it is passed, as I believe it will be, it will be the means of finding more employment than we have to-day. The Opposition have been crying out during the past election for work for the unemployed. If they were consistent they would vote for the Bill. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has included in the Finance Bill the taxation of Mining Bents and Royalties. Although it is only a small tax, it is a beginning. Having some little connection with the miners, I believe that mining rents ought to be abolished, and when you remember that the landlords of this country are receiving in mining rents something between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 per annum, to my mind it is an absurdity. This is a tax upon the industry of the miners of the country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing right in asking for a small tax. I have often wondered how it is that the coal-owners of the country have never attempted to agitate along with the miners for the taxation or the abolition of mining royalties. I expect it is because the coal-owners are friends of the owners of the land on which the collieries are sunk. However, I believe if the royalties were abolished, a tax of at least 9d. per ton would be taken off the industry of the miners, and the poor consumers would be able to get their coal at a much cheaper rate.
I am heartily in agreement with the Land Clauses. Two hundred odd years ago we used to derive more revenue from land in this country than we are deriving to-day, and to my mind it is not so much the 4s. in the £ that the landlords in the country are objecting to as the valuation scheme. We shall then be able to find out the value of the land in this country, which we do not know to-day. I am a member of the Manchester Corporation, and I was at the inauguration of our tramway undertaking, for which we had to borrow £2,000,000 on the credit of the ratepayers. The result was that the value of the land in the neighbourhood was increased in hundreds of cases from 2d. to 6d. per yard, and yet the owners of the land never contributed a farthing towards the relief of the rates. This Bill says that
102
at least one-half of that tax will come back to the local ratepayers. That alone is a thing that the House ought to support. I could give other instances of a similar character. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a bold stand and will not make any more concessions. Too many concessions have already been made. It is a question of putting the tax on the shoulders best able to bear it. When you remember that practically 30 per cent, of our population live below the poverty line, it will be seen that these people are already taxed enough. The aggregate wages of the working classes are going down at the rate of nearly £2,000,000 per annum, while the profits of the rich classes who pay Income Tax are going up at the rate of nearly £200,000,000 per annum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing the right thing in making those people pay the tax who are best able to bear them. I heartily support the Rill and trust it may become law, because we believe it is a step in the right direction.
8.0 P.M.
Mr. ORDE-POWLETT: I would not, have intervened in the Debate, but I think it is only right when a Member has been returned, chiefly on the subject which we are now discussing, that he should be able to voice the opinion of those who return him to the House. At this time of day it would be almost beyond the wit of man to find a new argument for or against the Budget proposals. You have thrashed it out for many months last year, and we have thrashed it out in the constituencies during the General Election, and the result has been that the Government has been returned to power with a very dwindled majority, and there are many on this side, including myself, who have been returned by rural constituencies with a mandate to oppose the Budget by all the means in our power. I think hon. Members opposite very often look down a little upon rural constituencies. They consider they are of minor importance compared with the industrial constituencies, and they think, especially when they are represented by Members on this side of the House, that their opinions are not worth taking into account. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite think they represent the democracy, but there are still a few democracies in the rural constituencies and a few men who are still carrying on, or trying to carry on, the great and most important industry of agriculture, and in these constituencies we have come—in England, at any rate, by a large majority—to the

103
conclusion that the Budget proposals are going to have a serious effect on our industry. We are sent here and it is right that we should regard it as our duty to protest against taxation which now or in the future, either directly or indirectly, is likely to place any further burden upon the industry of agriculture.
I know the Government have said that agricultural land is not going to be affected by the Budget proposals, but we take a diametrically opposite view of that. I think it is not difficult to see that the Land Taxes are brought forward with the view of hitting the big landowners in this country. When we read the speeches made at various times by hon. Gentlemen opposite we must conclude that these proposals are brought forward more with the view of altering the existing system of land tenure in this country than to obtain revenue for the needs of the Exchequer. I agree that when the Government pass their Budget they will carry out the object of hitting the big landowners in this country, but they will do more than that. They will hit harder, and in some cases smash, the smaller landowners, and in that case, whoever may pay the taxes imposed by this Budget, they are bound to inflict an injustice upon tenant farmers and labourers who are employed on those small estates. It is those employed on the small estates that they are going to hit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that agricultural land is not subject to Increment Duty. Judging from the Debate which took place on Thursday last, it seems very doubtful indeed whether the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are carried out in the clauses of the Budget. Even granting for a moment that agricultural land is exempted, I do not believe it will be possible in future to exempt agricultural land if once the principals you are proposing in the Budget are passed into law. Agricultural land, even if it is exempt from Increment Duty, is not exempt from the other duties proposed in this Budget. There are hundreds of thousands of acres round towns which will be subject to the Undeveloped Land Duty, and that land is at the present moment producing food for the people of this country. All I can say is that if this tax is placed upon land which is producing food for the people, you are to all intents and purposes placing a tax upon the food of the people. I know that at the General Election this Undeveloped Land Tax was spoken of by
104
many hon. Gentlemen opposite as being very small in amount—only a halfpenny. They asked, What is the use of making such a fuss about a mere halfpenny of taxation? But they carefully avoided saying that that halfpenny was on the capital value and not the annual value of the land. Everyone knows that a halfpenny on capital value is a very different thing from a halfpenny on annual value. Is there any guarantee that this Tax will not be increased in the future? [An HON. MEMBER: "I hope not."] Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer guarantee that this tax will not be increased so long, at any rate, as he is responsible for the finances of this country? There are hon. Members sitting on the Labour Benches who make no effort to hide the fact that they wish to see this tax raised to a great deal higher point than at the present moment. Hon. Members are honest in stating what they wish. They say they do not want to see the tax remain at a halfpenny, and that it should be raised to 20s. in the £. This is a very ingenious way of annexing land by the State without paying for it. But if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway wish to see the tax raised to that extent, keeping in view the bargains which have been going on during the past few weeks, I do not believe the Government would be capable of resisting the pressure placed upon them by the Labour Members. Even without that tax, I think, if this Budget is passed into law, agriculture and the owners of agricultural land throughout the country are bound to suffer. I do not refer to the large and wealthy owners of land, but rather to the smaller owners.
I know some cases myself of people who own some purely agricultural land and a little land round a town which has a building value. Those owners have nothing to depend upon except what comes out of the land. During the past thirty years three-fourths of these properties have depreciated enormously in value. The only bit they get anything to speak of from are those parts round towns. The proposals in the Budget ignore the fact that three-fourths of these properties have depreciated, and it is proposed to place the tax upon that small portion of property round a town which may have increased in value owing to no effort on the part of the owner. I think it is admitted on every hand by professors of economy that if a tax is taken for increment, some relief should be given in respect of decrement in the remainder of a property. The Government take no notice

105
of the depreciation in three-fourths of these properties. To my mind the whole of the Land Tax proposals are aimed at the land, and the owners of land alone. You may think you are hitting the owners only, but I think you are very much mistaken. By hitting the owners you are hitting the tenant farmers and agricultural labourers, and you are doing a serious injury, in some cases giving a mortal blow, to people who during thirty years of depression have been striving carry on agriculture in this country.
Mr. CLOUGH: As the representative of a rural constituency bordering on that represented by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Orde-Powlett) I would say that the hon. Member may be surprised to learn that we on this side of the House find it a real pleasure to-day to be in full cry on a hot scent of the enemies of the people's Budget, and that we have the exhilarating feeling that after taking three very easy fences at the gallop without touching a rein, we shall be in at the kill. This Budget has been happily named "the people's Budget." It is a Budget the common people love and appreciate. They were very quick to recognise during the last election the self-sacrificing and painstaking labours of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in getting this Budget through last Session of Parliament. In fact whenever his name was mentioned at any of the election meetings a voice was sure to cry out, "Three cheers for Lloyd-George," and you were lucky if you were allowed to proceed without an encore. At any rate, that was the experience in the North of England in the county represented by the hon. Member opposite. The electors in the North are educated and intelligent, and they know what is at stake on their behalf in the issues of this Budget. Perhaps the same observation might not apply to the constituencies in the Home Counties or in the South, or to the Universities. They are so benighted in these constituencies that a canvasser was asked by one of the electors, "Who is Mr. Budget? What constituency is he standing for?" You may understand from that how versed some of the electors were in the questions of the day. The people want this Budget, and none other, because they shrewdly guess that if an alternative Budget were brought in by the Opposition and the House of Lords it would not be a people's Budget, but a landowners' and log-rollers' Budget.
106
Why do the people take such a strong fancy to this Budget? What is the secret of its popularity? It is because it is founded on sound, fair, and well-tried principles. First of all, it levies taxes only for revenue purposes. There is no Protection and no log-rolling in it. The whole product of these taxes goes into the nation's coffers. That is the Free Trade finance of this Budget. Once it has gone through it will make Free Trade finance immortal, and strike a mortal blow at the Tariff Reformers' nostrum. The second principle is that it imposes new taxes only on luxuries and non-necessaries of life. It does not touch food or the necessaries of life. In the third place, it instructs the tax-collectors to call only on those persons who have enough and to spare, and they are not to knock at the doors of the poor and needy. In what respect does this Budget differ from past Budgets? It is built up on the same lines. It has increased old taxation. It has added 8d. per pound on tobacco, 3s. 9d. per gallon on spirits, 3d. per barrel on beer, 2d. in the £ on unearned incomes. It has increased the scale for motor licences and the Death Duties, and it has initiated or invented several new taxes. What are they? They are 6d. in the £ on super-income—that is income above £5,000 a year; Is. per £ on Royalties; 3d. per gallon on petrol; 4s. in the £ on the unearned increment on land values when realised. If they never realise they will never have to pay. Then there are ½d. in the £ on undeveloped land values and 2s. in the £ on windfalls from reversion.
It is plain that each of these is a luxury or a non-necessity of life, or, to use a more Parliamentary word perhaps, a superfluity. We can assume that it is a luxury to smoke or drink; we shall all agree that it is a great luxury to drive a motor car and to have an unearned income, and we shall all agree that the greatest luxury of all is to have an assured income of above £5,000 per year. No man need be hit by this Budget, if he is determined to be missed. There is no Act of Parliament compelling a man to smoke or drink or to drive a motor car, or to eke out a miserable existence on an unearned income. In fact, a witty barrister who was a Member of this House, and worked hard to secure the passage of this Bill last Session, said that the Budget suited him down to the ground, because he did not smoke, he did not drink, and he had no income. Now it is to the everlasting glory of the working masses that they have never grumbled

107
at the increased taxation under this Budget, because they understood its true inwardness. They knew that in the long run they would benefit by it. A Tariff Reformer tried to scare a working man by telling him this Budget would make him pay more for his pipe and his glass, and he promptly retorted, "That is all right. There is only one man in this house smokes and drinks, and that is myself. But there are eight of us eat bread"; and there he went to the very root of the matter. At the close of one of our meetings in the Skipton Division, when the meeting was breaking up, a labourer who was lighting his pipe said, holding up his tobacco, "Here you are, threepenorth o' bacca and hawporth o' 'Dreadnowt.'" In welcoming this extra halfpenny on the ounce of tobacco which he was paying for the "Dreadnought," he seemed to be rather proud of his interest as a shareholder in the "Dreadnought." It was not a pride that was reciprocated by the Liberal candidate, but it was there in the mind of this man.
In telling the tale outside it was easy to adorn it by pointing the further moral that the smoker realised that he had to pay that extra half-penny an ounce for his tobacco and that the foreigner did not pay it for him. The foreigner did not send over a cargo of half-pence along with the cargo of tobacco. He also realised that the tobacconist, out of the goodness of his heart, did not pay it, for while the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement on 29th April last year, the man who went down to the tobacconist next morning had to plank down an extra halfpenny for his ounce of tobacco. After that it was perfectly hopeless to appeal to Northern constituencies to try to gull the voters into the belief that the foreigners will ever pay the tax, that the foreigner will send along with his shipload of grain a shipload of florins in order to pay two shillings a quarter upon foreign corn. No, that idea of making the foreigner pay the tax died a sudden death, beyond the powers of resurrection. The foreigner did deceive the workman with regard to his tobacco, and he will take good care that he does not let him deceive him either with regard to foreign corn or foreign manufactures. The man in the street also learnt in double-quick time that this extra taxation was not going to be paid either by the distiller, or the brewer, or the publican. It soon became manifest that the consumer would have to pay, and in that
108
merciless school of experience, the taxpayer has learnt, let us hope once for all, that he can only escape the burdens of taxation by their non-imposition, or by their remission on the part of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not on the part of a Chancellor of the Exchequer of any foreign Government. But the industrial masses have never grumbled at this Budget. If they have to build "Dreadnoughts," if they can only have their old age pensions, they are willing to stand their corner in paying the extra taxation upon their luxuries. The only classes to wince under this Budget have been the poor, but honest dukes, and those who hobnob with them.
Why have they winced? They have winced because of the Valuation Clauses that are contained in the Budget, the Doomsday Book up to date. That is what frightens them. They are not frightened at the revolution and the end of all things. They are frightened at the revelation, the new Book of Revelations, to be edited by St. George the diviner. There will toe many chapters in that book of untold millions' worth of pounds of real property, which will now have to pay a modest toll of a halfpenny in the pound, but which hitherto have escaped scot free. That scandal will be brought to an end by means of this Budget. This Budget is deservedly popular with the common people, because the Chancellor makes out the demand notes on the same rule as that in which a doctor makes out his bill. A doctor bases his fee on the rateable value of the house in which his patient lives. If he visits Lansdowne House he charges £5 a visit; at least he ought to do so, if he does not. If he visits the manor house, he charges a sovereign a visit. If he visits the cottage he charges half-a-crown a visit. He never refuses. "Where duty calls, or danger, he's never wanting there." But when he has been to a very poor patient he very often forgets to send in his account. There is a well-authenticated example of a noble doctor in a neighbouring constituency of Otley, who had a sliding scale even lower than this. The doctor was a Wesleyan local preacher. If the President of the Board of Trade were here he would appreciate this example, seeing that he himself was a brother of that right hon. fraternity. This doctor had as a patient a poor man, who was also a local preacher. He saw what the patient wanted was not physic, but food; so when he went home to his surgery he made up his prescription

109
and put it into a pill box, and inscribed thereon, "To be taken as required," and when the person opened the pill-box he found that it was full of sixpences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes out his Income Tax assessments exactly on the same lines as that doctor followed. He goes to the man with about £5,000 and demands an Income Tax of 1s. 8d. in the £; to the man with an unearned income he demands an Income Tax of 1s. 2d. in the £; from the tradesman he demands 9d. in the £, and where a man has only £160 a year he sends him no demand at all. To the very poor man or woman above the age of seventy years, metaphorically speaking, he sends him or her from two to ten sixpences a week. Is there little wonder that this Budget is acclaimed by the multitude of the common People? It will be a long day before the Liberal party forget the great Budget introduced in 1894 by the late Sir William Harcourt, but the first Budget introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be remembered gratefully for generations to come. It will be, indeed, a red-letter day in the calendar of the United Kingdom when this Budget finds an abiding resting place on the Statute Book of the realm.
Mr. E. ROYDS: I ask the indulgence of the House in addressing it for the first time. Hon. Members who have spoken on the other side approved of this Budget because it places the burdens on the broad backs of those who are able to bear them, and they approve of the Land Taxes because they are placed on broad backs. I would ask those hon. Gentlemen whether, because a man owns one acre of land, or ten acres, or a thousand acres, has a back which is necessarily so broad as to be able to bear not only a fair share of the country's burdens, but also an additional and special burden which is not placed on other forms of property? No such tax is proposed to be placed on those who may make, in the course of a few weeks, 100 per cent, in gambling on the Stock Exchange; but the man who owns land, and has probably to be content with a return of 2, 3, or 4 per cent, at the outside, is considered to have a back so broad that he ought to be picked out to bear this special burden. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be very much in accord with those which were made on almost every Radical platform in the course of the General Election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is not free from blame in leading
110
the country to suppose that the burden was being put on the broad back—by broad back I mean the back of the landlord. He himself set an example of making attacks on the big landlords of the country, and so led the people to suppose that it was the big landlords only who were touched by this particular tax, and not the small owners. The truth is that this Land Tax will fall on the rich and poor alike. It will fall on all owners of land, great and small, and by far the greater number of owners of land in this country are exceedingly poor. [HON. Members: '"Oh."] That is the true position. The bulk of the landowners in this country are poor, and the small and poor landowners outnumber the big landowners by twenty or thirty to one. There is no doubt about that at all. And the Labour Members, in supporting this Finance Bill, overlook the fact that land is a favourite investment for the working classes. It is the one form of investment for an artisan with savings. He likes to make his investment in land and house property, and he is very right to do so, because it is a form of property he understands and can see. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned last week that he was proposing to make a commencement by taxing out of existence certain owners of land who were holding up the land. If you refer to the Land Clauses of the Budget you will find there is no reference whatever to owners who hold up the land. All owners of land are dealt with alike. If there are any considerable number of owners holding up the land to the detriment of the community, instead of punishing all owners of land, great and small, surely the proper course would be to apply to Parliament for powers to enable the community affected to acquire the land compulsorily on reasonable and fair terms. I think the most serious consequence of these land proposals will be that they must of necessity drive capital away from the land. It is of very much more importance to a man, whether he is a builder or a purchaser of land, that he should get his money on reasonable, cheap, and easy terms. Of much more importance to him is the price at which he gets his money than the price which he pays for the land.
If a man buys, say, ten acres of land all the benefit of the outlay in respect of building will probably be at least ten times what he obtains from the land itself; and therefore the House will see that the terms on which he gets his money is of much more importance to him than the

111
price at which he gets his land. At the present time land has been looked upon as a safe investment, and money has been available on very reasonable terms— generally something like 4 per cent. If these Land Clauses become law the result must be disastrous. No man will in future lend money on such a. complicated security and such a complicated title. It must be obvious that these provisions, if they are passed, instead of making the land attractive to the investor, will have the effect of driving him from it. In my view that is a most serious part of these Land Clauses. I think the fact that money will not be available on easy terms must be a very disastrous thing. The whole body of practical men connected with the land—builders, lawyers, architects, and surveyors—have all given their opinion on these Land Clauses, and have been absolutely united in condemning them. But apparently the opinion of practical men, who give that opinion perfectly honestly, goes for nothing. It has gone for nothing, and no notice has been taken of the opinion of these practical men. These Land Taxes and the whole scheme seem to me to be worked by theorists who have no practical connection with land, and have no practical knowledge of the developments of the land. That seems to me to be a most unfortunate state of affairs. Many speakers who represent agricultural constituencies have dealt with the agricultural part of the matter. I say nothing on that beyond the fact that I should like to make it clear in my opinion these Land Taxes, as they stand, apply to all land in the country, agricultural land included, but there is some agricultural land which may be temporarily exempted. I think that is all that can be fairly said of the position of the Land Taxes of the Budget.
Mr. C. A. GRENFELL: I think that the remarks of the last speaker are only on a par with previous predictions that we have had from hon. Members opposite. We have had almost every epithet that could be imagined applied to this Budget. We have been told that it was a sham, a penal, a revolutionary, and a Socialistic Budget, and I think one hon. Member described it as the maddest Budget ever introduced. We were told it would produce too much revenue, and, on the other hand, that some of the taxes produced no revenue at all. We were told Free Trade finance had broken down. We were told, more-
112
over, that it would have three main effects, that it would cause unemployment, commercial depression, and tend to drive capital abroad. I think anybody who listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his opening statement last week will have come to the conclusion, as he quietly unfolded and revealed the definite results of his policy, that he had completely vindicated that policy, and that he had emerged so triumphantly as to justify a pæan of joy and even perhaps a peroration in Welsh. Financial croakings have always formed part of the stock-in-trade of politicians. Lord Macaulay, in a chapter on the period from 1690 to 1700, goes very fully into the croakings which then began on the first creation of the National Debt, and that swelled with each successive increase of that Debt. Lord Macaulay sums them up thus:—
"There must have been some great fallacy in the notions of those who uttered mill or those who believed that long succession of confident predictions so signally falsified by a long succession of indisputable facts"
Let us go back to the time when this Budget was introduced. Trade then was not good. It was a doubtful period, but the Government with exemplary courage decided on the increased expenditure necessary for old age pensions, the Navy, and social reforms long needed. Again we were told that it could not be inflicted without imposing great hardships, but it has been done without inflicting any hardships, or any damage to trade or commerce, or any privations on the great masses of the people in this country, or without a single poor man, woman, or child having to deprive themselves of a single meal, or of any of the necessities of life. Seven-eighths of the taxes have been collected, and the balance obtained by temporary borrowing. So that the collection of the amount now required is not, figuratively speaking, fresh indebtedness. That has been accomplished too in an abnormal year when nearly every first class Power with their protectionist fiscal systems have had to meet their annual expenditure by permanent loans. We shall when the whole of the collection of the taxes is completed have redeemed over £8,500,000 of Debt, and quietly met the great expense of the year, an expense which I think should satisfy every single Member of this House. To be perfectly candid, there has not been financial chaos. All is well that ends well, and what an eloquent tribute to the common-sense of the people of these islands. I think we perhaps little realise how near we may

113
have been to having a very great disturbance in the money market. A chance word, a strike, some dispute with a foreign Power. Any of those unforeseen circumstances might have created a very dangerous situation. Meanwhile, trade has increased and unemployment has decreased, and the Stock Exchange has enjoyed its booms. Last year, which began badly, ended well. The town, Metroplitan, and country clearings of cheques and bills showed an increase over 1908 of £1,400,000,000 (fourteen hundred millions) as regards the Clearing House. It was a record of over £700,000,000 (seven hundred millions) over anything previously done in this country before. This year already, for three and a half months, there is an increase in Clearing House returns of £494,000,000 over what it was last year, which, as I have pointed out, was a record. We know that Clearing House figures are not entirely reliable as evincing the activity of trade, but taken in conjunction with other figures, they help to form what Lord Macaulay called "indisputable facts." The other figures I take are those of the railway traffics. Railway traffics during the first half-year were poor, and they improved during the last half-year. All our principal railways either maintained or increased their dividends. For the present half-year fifty-three railways of the United Kingdom show an increase of £835,000. Those figures are very remarkable. Further, the Board of Trade figures show that our over-sea trade has increased until at the present moment it has almost reached, and I confidently predict it will reach, the high-water mark of 1907. We have now a gross over-sea trade of over £100,000,000 per month.
The criticisms which we have heard during these Debates on the Budget seem to me to be mostly those of detail. A great many hon. Members on the other side agree with us, I believe, that these Land Value Taxes, or, at any rate, some of them, would be amply justified if their proceeds went entirely to the municipalities. If we take them with us so far I think we have gone a long way towards agreement. When it is remembered how interwoven our national finances are with municipal finances it is not a very long stretch to say that it is only fair that half the proceeds of these taxes should be retained for the National Exchequer. Another general argument is that the Land Clauses will cause much unemployment. Putting it in the form used on the platform,
114
which, perhaps, is not one I would always commend, it has been stated that the taxes would lead to the dismissal of butlers, footmen, gamekeepers, and other employés on the estates. Surely that argument can be applied to any and every tax which increases the annual levy. If hon. Members opposite agree that we have reached a period where an increase of taxation is necessary they must agree that you cannot raise more money for the purposes of the State, whether by Free Trade or by Tariff Reform, without narrowing the margin that a man has to spend. If you narrow that margin, unless he is very rich, a man has got in some way or other to make some sacrifice. I agree with a previous speaker, that, speaking of the fairly well-off people, the man on whom these taxes will press most is the smaller county gentleman. I also agree that his voice has not been heard. The voice we heard all through the election and before was that of the very rich landlord, who, to my mind, can easily afford to pay. On the other hand, there are the country gentlemen in whose cases any increase of taxation so narrows the margin of what they have to spend that it may make it difficult for them to live in the houses which they have inherited. Those are the men who give their time to county work and assist us with the Territorials, and if the increased taxation does press hardly on them they have my fullest sympathy.
Another question which has been fully discussed is that of foreign investments. On these financial questions we all have different theories. It is a very wide field to cover. The argument which has been brought forward, like most of the Tariff Reform arguments, is entirely a comparative one—that is to say, that British credit has fallen, but the credit of other countries, which also has fallen, has not fallen so much in proportion. It has also been said that there has been a rise in the credit of many of the municipalities of foreign countries and of foreign countries themselves, whereas there has not been any similar rise in this country. That is probably so, but many of the foreign countries which enjoy good credit now, and many of the municipalities which are now able to issue loans in our markets, when I first went upon the Stock Exchange either enjoyed no credit at all or in some cases did not exist. Naturally, when a young municipality first goes into the market it has to borrow at a higher rate than subsequently, when its credit is more firmly

115
established. I think it is one of the most-ridiculous arguments ever put forward, as if the rise and fall of the credit of Japan compared with the rise and fall of the credit of England had anything to do with party politics. There is not the slightest difficulty in this country in getting money for sound and legitimate enterprises. I am a director of one of the tube railways and associated generally with the scheme. We have schemes out now for further extensions, but we shall not have the slightest difficulty in getting our money, and we shall get it on better terms than any other country would get money for a similar enterprise in that country. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a statement the other day on this subject, the only fault of which, so far as it referred to the City of New York, was that he put the case too mildly. The City of New York recently borrowed—I think last month—and had to pay 4¼ per cent, for its money, whereas the Three per Cent. Stock of London stands at about 95 to 96. If you read the Debate in the House of Lords on the subject you will see that the very people who seemed to be decrying these foreign investments were Lord Rothschild and Lord Revelstoke, the two people who have most tempted the investors of this country with their foreign dishes, and perhaps done more than anyone to lead our investors to prefer them to the solid roast beef of England. Messrs. Baring last year issued a 4 per cent. United Pacific Bond at 95. I think it was a first mortgage on a portion of the line. At any rate it was an exceedingly well-secured bond on one of the greatest railways, if not the greatest railway, in the United States. That loan returned 4¼ to 4⅜ per cent., the same as at that time you were able to obtain from English railway ordinary stock. Is it a matter for surprise that those who had to make investments preferred a first mortgage on the United Pacific Railway, a concern paying 10 per cent, on its ordinary shares, to the ordinary stock of one of our railways?
The truth of the matter is that there is no one factor by which you can measure the price of stocks. I should say myself, and I speak continually with eminent financiers, that the great factor was the value of money at the time, or what had been the value of money for a certain period. France is a country whose security at the present moment stands, I think, on an equality with ours. First of
116
all, French Rentes are tax free, and are a very favourite investment with the people of that thrifty and saving nation. The French have had a bank-rate for the two or three years of 3 per cent, against our 4 per cent. Moreover, they have not had to pay off £30,000,000 War Loan, which we have recently had to do. They have not had to raise £34,000,000 on bills, which we have had to do owing to the action of the House of Lords. They have not had to use their credit to the tune of £60,000,000 or £70,000,000, which we have had to do in the last few years under the Irish Land Purchase Act. They have not had to lend their credit to the Transvaal as we have recently done to the tune of £5,000,000 sterling. If you view all these things that this country has done, it is marvellous that we should still hold the premier position, as we do, in the finance of the world.
9.0 P.M.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the power, as alleged, to divert capital into different channels; if he has to have the discredit of having driven money into foreign investments, I think at any rate that we ought to give him the popularity of rubber and oil! Let me finally say that what we are decrying here, foreign investments, are being encouraged as much as possible at the present time an the United States. Hon. Members will have seen the other day that that country insisted in taking their share in the negotiations that were going on for a loan to China. President Taft certainly made a speech on that point, and stated:—
"That it is necessary that the United States should as much as possible encourage her foreign in vestments with a view to stimulate the export trade"
I am not going to detain the House any more with my views on the financial situation. But I do rather hope that that bogey, alongside the Socialist bogey, which has repeatedly been thrown at us over this Budget, has been laid to rest. I think that the Socialist part of it was laid to rest, and the grave was dug by the Tory ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord St. Aldwyn, in his letter to "The Times" on 18th December last. I wish to most heartily congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the satisfactory manner in which, in spite of great difficulties, he has been able to meet the situation.
Mr. J. L. BAIRD: At the very beginning of the Session the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes) expressed the opinion that the new Members of this House take no part in the

117
discussion on the Budget. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place at present. I should like to ask him when he returns whether he means by that that his constituents are going to pay taxes that my Constituents otherwise ought to pay, because I cannot imagine any other reason for depriving Members of this House of the right of speech on any measure that comes before this House. The fact that the Budget was discussed at great length in the last House of Commons has nothing to do with the matter. A new House was elected mainly on the subject of the Budget. My Constituents were, no doubt, unintentionally, but none the less quite deliberately, misrepresented on the last occasion that this measure was before the House. I think rather that the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow was giving us a forestalment from the methods which obtained on the last occasion that we enjoyed a unicameral Government in this country, which was at the time of the Commonwealth, of what was likely to happen. The House of Commons then, having been forced to agree to a dissolution, decided that the old Members were, ipso facto, to be re-elected, and were to have the power of vetoing whatever the new Members decided. As we have not yet reached that stage, I think it due to my Constituents to lay before the House some of the objections which they felt towards this Budget, for which their Member voted upon the last occasion that it was before the House. The hon. Member for Mansfield Division maintained that the Budget had not been talked about by his opponents at the election. I daresay that was very lucky for him, for I am certain my opponents talked about it, and I talked about it, and everybody had an opportunity of deciding whether they would vote for it or not. I have here a leaflet issued by my opponent at the last election, and the virtues of the Budget are here freely set out. He says it lifts the burden off the poor, unlocks the land to the people, adapts the burdens to the backs that can bear them, and that it is the crowning test and final argument for Free Trade. I think that puts it very succinctly, but the misfortune was that my Constituents did not see it in that light. They thought it did none of these things, and they thought that the Government were quite wrong upon the subject, and in consequence they sent me here with a direct mandate to oppose this Budget which was passed the last time. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think
118
it is going to be passed through this House and the House of Lords. How is it going to be passed? How is it to get through this House? [HON. Members: "By a majority."] The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), upon whom the passing of the Budget depends, as hon. Members opposite admit, made this statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of 11th February:—
"If Home Rule is to be put upon one side, then I will fight the Budget, but if it is a question of the Budget and Home Rule I will accept the Budget."
That is nine-tenths Home Rule and one-tenth Budget, and that is why you have a majority for the Budget now. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford is pleased to vote for it, because he thinks right hon. Gentlemen opposite will give him Home Rule. Well, a great many years ago it was said by a gentleman no less ingenious and no less fertile than the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. The hon. Member for Waterford may yet see the wisdom of that when he comes to show his people the value of this Home Rule. Meanwhile, the Irish people have to swallow the Budget, which they hate, in the hope of getting Home Rule, which the Nationalists want. Hon. Members will admit that but for the support of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford they would never get their Budget.
It is said by supporters of the Budget that it is based on altogether novel principles. It is held to be one of its virtues, that it introduces these novel principles. We have only to refer to the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know what these principles are. He admitted that in order to find the money necessary for various measures he had to-look round for hen-roosts to rob. The Lord Advocate said, speaking at Coventry, on 11th September last year:—
"These Land Taxes involve a principle which is capable of very wide application, and very great extension."
That is what we object to in the Land Taxes. It is not only what is intended to-be done now in regard to them, but it is the possibility of their extension, which is to make land absolutely valueless in. the country. You can see how that principle works out from a statement which is reported to have been made upon this subject by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden):—
"For present purposes, either for revenue or for land reform, the Land Clauses, attenuated as they now are by countless concessions to the landowners, are all

119
but worthless. For some years there would be no net revenue from the Land Taxes at all. The cost of the land valuation will more than swallow up the revenue from increment, from reversion and Undeveloped Land Taxes for the next four years at least."
So that the Land Clauses of this financial measure will produce no revenue for four years.
"But the impression is abroad that this Budget is clipping the wings of the landlords—or pulling their teeth would perhaps be a better simile—and the supporters, of the Budget believe that when once the machinery is built and the principle established, it would be easy to increase the amount of the taxes."
I am bound to say that that method of taxation, pulling the teeth of the landlords, seems to be going back to rather barbarous days, or to the very Socialistic state of affairs that prevails among some primitive nations. If hon. Gentlemen want to introduce that system into this country they cannot be surprised if other people oppose it. The object of the Land Taxes, we are told, is to draw the teeth of the landlords. It may be some satisfaction to some people to do that, but the question is, are you going to do any good by it for the poorer people; are you going to reduce land? Are you going to put money into anybody's pocket? Are you going to increase wages? Are you going to make it more easy for a man to get a house and to pay the equivalent rent necessary? How are you going to do all that? It is very easy to make promises of that sort, but is it by throwing land upon the market you make it more easy for land to be obtained? I have not the slightest doubt that a great deal of land will be thrown upon the market; you will find plenty of willing sellers. How many buyers will you find? You will find no buyers at all.
I should like to mention an incident that occurred at Rugby. There there is a building society kept by the working men. When the Budget was brought in they had a large sum of money in the bank, and they sought to obtain power for the society to invest this money in securities other than land. That money which was meant to be invested solely in land, but owing to the state of the land market due to the introduction of the Budget, they found it was not possible to invest in land. These people were not imaginary dukes such as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer described, in Lime-house, but were workmen whose savings were intended for the purchase of houses, yet the first thing that happened after this measure was brought in was that that society sought powers to invest its funds in securities other than
120
land. How is that going to help the working man who wants a house? He is not going to invest a farthing in land. As a matter of fact I do not think hon. Members opposite will deny that the operation of the Land Taxes is the same as any other "bear" operation upon securities. You depreciate the value of the securities; the poor man sells, and who is it that buys? The rich man who can afford to wait and see. Hon. Gentlemen cannot but know that when stocks are falling the security is falling. That is a concrete example of the effect of these taxes on land as regards building. Another effect as regards employment is that one builder I know, who usually employs 2,000 people, is now only able to employ 600. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to find work for the odd 1,400? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but these are facts to do with working men, whom they claim to represent. I claim to represent as many trades unionists as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and I know they are not in favour of the Socialistic remedies advocated by them. Again, nobody knows what is going to happen in regard to agricultural land. Is it going to be unlocked for the people? At one time we are told it is not going to be affected, and the next thing we hear is that it is all going to be valued. What is it all going to be valued for? Is it going to be valued to satisfy the curiosity of hon. Gentlemen opposite with a view of eventually taxing it? If you are going to put a tax on it, why not say so. Why is the liberty of the individual to be infringed in this way? How would hon. Gentlemen opposite like to be pestered with valuers, surveyors, lawyers, and clerks? There is no reason at all why a certain class should be singled out for treatment of that kind because they have invested their money in land. It used to be one of the greatest securities in the country, and now it is one of the worst.
It is perfectly impossible in the time the Government has given to the House to go into many of these taxes at all, and only a few of them can be dealt with superficially. It does not matter what we say, because the Government have already decreed that no alteration in the Bill is to be made in spite of the fact that the 168 opponents of this Bill in the last Parliament has now been increased to 295. That shows their regard for popular liberties and the value the Government, put on "government of the people, by the

121
people, for the people." Tobacco is taxed 500 per cent. There is a tobacco factory at Rugby, and the cigars manufactured there are consumed by the poorest section of the community. Before this Budget you could get those cigars at 3d. per packet, and they were very much fancied, but the first effect of this Budget is that those packets are to be put up to 3½d., because there is no coin to represent the exact increase in the tax, and the working men refused to buy them. What is more important, sixty women employed in the factory were at once turned away. Under these circumstances I do not see how it can be claimed that there is any advantage to the working classes in this tax either from the point of view of the convenience of working men or employment. The fact that these people were thrown out of work makes less money available for circulation in the town, and that reflects on the shopkeepers who supply food and clothing. The beer dealers also suffered very much. They used to pay a Licence Duty of £3 10s., and they will now be called upon to pay £10 10s. That means that a great many of them will have to give up their business altogether. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker) was very much in favour of these Licence Duties, and he quoted figures to show that the consumption of drink was steadily decreasing. If ever there was a moment when it is unjust to tax a business surely it is when that business is on the decrease. The taxes on the trade have been increased enormously out of proportion to its capacity to bear it. That is not taxation, but sequestration. This is an attempt to make people drink cocoa, and incidentally you are throwing a great many perfectly honest people out of work, making employment difficult to get, and decreasing the amount of business done and the amount of profit made amongst the shopkeepers and tradesmen in the town.
Then there is the duty on hotels. In Rugby they are not doing particularly well. They were assessed eight years ago much higher than the amount they paid, and they also had to contribute to the Compensation Fund. They now find that the amount of taxation they will have to bear will be largely increased. That is distinctly unfair. This increase in the hotel duty is not going to raise money, but it will do harm to individuals who are con-corned in this perfectly legitimate trade.
122
The upshot of the whole thing is that these people in South-east Warwickshire, who were misrepresented here on the last occasion when the Budget was before this House, voted for the rejection of this Budget and for the adoption of some other means of raising the money. Their views cannot now be given expression to on account of the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, who hate the Budget just as much as they do, and are only voting for it because they hope to achieve a different object, and one to which the electors in South-East Warwickshire are equally opposed. This is an admirable example of the system of log-rolling that is going on, and which is favoured by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who by a system of bargaining, or rather by what I should call manœuvring, can manage to obtain a majority for a measure which the whole House is not in favour of. This they accomplish by the manipulation of the votes of various groups in the House. We have in this a fine example of what single-chamber Government really means. It means that extreme parties can have their wishes thrust down the throats of the country, and that ordinary moderate men have to stand aside and are unable to have the quiet, ordinary progress we have been accustomed to in this country. Whatever hon. Gentlemen may say with regard to the effect of the Budget on our credit, there is no denying that anybody who has any money to invest, either foreigners or Englishmen—because foreigners used to come to this country to invest—the last thing they want to invest in are British securities. Whatever may be said about theory, the fact remains that people do not go to the City nowadays and ask for British investments, but for foreign investments, and the net result is that you have struck the most damaging blow which has ever been experienced in the metropolis of the Empire, and which is bound to act unfavourably both in this country and in the great sister States which look to us for an example.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The speech to which we have just listened seems to sum up the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this Budget. They remain to this day unrepentant and impenitent, condemning the Budget, so they say, as much to-day as on 29th April last year, when it was introduced first of all by my right hon. Friend. It is, so they told us with sickening reiteration during the last Parliament, Socialistic; it is revolutionary, and it is the end

123
of all things. So bad was the Budget that the House of Lords was justified, as a patriotic Assembly, in throwing it out. That was the reason and justification, so we were told, for the action of the House of Lords in referring this Budget to the people. This Budget, plausible as Beelzebub, it might be the people of this country would be so blind as to accept, but, if so, then their blood be on their own heads. The House of Lords would have discharged the patriotic duty of a Second Chamber by referring this revolutionary legislation to the electors of this country. That was the justification put forward, and the House of Lords did it. We had an election last January, and we came back here in February. I remember on the first night of the Session the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith), who condescends to lead the party opposite when he is here, and who when he is absent leaves the right hon. Gentleman the official Leader of the Opposition to lead it, said three times, like the bellman—
"You are beaten, Yon are beaten, you are beaten."
And we sat on these benches cowed in silence. We thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would never have been able to use such emphasis or talk with so much confidence unless it was true, and we began to think there was a majority in this House perhaps, or a majority in the country, of that view. Such was the spell and the fascination of the hon. and learned Gentleman that we began to think we were in a minority over this question. We were told that the House of Lords had been fully justified in its unprecedented action in interfering with the finances. Very well, does anybody say that we are in a minority here? It has been said over and over again in these Debates that this Budget is going through as the result of a corrupt, wicked, and sinister bargain between my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd-George) and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). We were told by the Leader of the Opposition only last week what the price is which is being paid by the Government to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The enslavement of the House of Commons, the destruction of the House of Lords, and the degradation of the Crown—that is the price we are told that the Government has paid to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I only read this morning a leading article in "The Times" news-
124
paper which sums up all these contentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is what is said:—
"On appeal the country returned a majority against the Finance Bill, which is now at last to be passed by 'the machine,' after long drawn-out intrigues, in which the wishes of the country have been totally ignored, while the open enemies, alike of the Constitution and the integrity of the United Kingdom, have been cajoled with 'bated breath and whispering humbleness.'"
That is the view expressed and entertained, I have no doubt, by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the nature of the bargain, it is called, by which this Budget is to go through. Let me ask in all seriousness, if they really do believe what they profess, why allow this Budget to go through at all? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has only to ring the bell and his obedient servants at the other end of the corridor will throw out this unwelcome intruder. Why does he not do so? Why does he not call a meeting at Lansdowne House? Here is a wicked, corrupt, and unpatriotic Government, by a sinister and degrading bargain with the Irish rebels, with this disloyal party from Ireland, thrusting an unpopular measure on an unwilling people. If it was the patriotic duty of the House of Lords last year to throw out this Bill, surely now, when the Bill is not only intrinsically bad in itself, but is being thrust through the House of Commons by means so corrupt and wicked, it is twice their duty to throw it out! Why does not the Leader of the Opposition ask the House of Lords to do so? One little signal is all that is needed. Let him say the word, and the House of Lords will do his behest at once. No, the real truth is not that. The real truth is what the right hon. Gentleman the late Solicitor-General (Sir Edward Carson) said the other day. He accused the Government, in tones of indignation, of humbugging the House of Commons. That is what he and his colleagues are doing now. They are humbugging the House of Commons, and they hope to humbug the country as well. You cannot have it both ways. Either this Bill is a bad Bill carried into law by corrupt and bad means, or hon. Gentlemen do not mean what they say. The country will not be at a loss to know which version to accept. What is the real meaning? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] We do not want to wait, we can see now. All this tall talk and all this tawdry rhetoric is taken by us for what it is worth. I listened during the whole of the discussions last year to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition on the Budget, and I am sure if he were

125
here he would believe me, knowing Parliament, as he does, when I say on this side of the House there are to be found quite as sincere admirers of his ability as on that side. I listened very carefully to what he said in the Budget discussions, and I never found a single trace from beginning to end of anything in the nature of a signal to the House of Lords to throw out the Budget Bill last year. He struck me as being by no means an irreconcilable enemy of the principles of the Budget. Everyone knows this Debate is most unreal. It is merely a far-off echo of the worn-out platitudes that have done duty on thousands of platforms during the past year. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now give a signal to the House of Lords and throw it out. I think the fact is it is part of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman to "dish" the Tariff Reformers. Last week we saw the first step of that in the letter to "my dear Mr. Courthope," throwing over the agricultural party, putting aside the tax on Colonial corn, and throwing over the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who has not since appeared here.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: "Shame."
Mr. L. WILLIAMS: I do not know why the Noble Lord cries "Shame."
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Member had better find out.
Mr. L. WILLIAMS: At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has thrown over the agricultural party in England, and I am inclined to think that that is this second step in the acceptance of the Budget. We were told, over and over again, two years ago that Free Trade finance was bankrupt, and that the growing needs and requirements of a democratic State demanded an expanding revenue such as could not be provided under the Free Trade system. The answer has been supplied by my right hon. Friend here. He has produced a Budget which provides sufficient money for all your "Dreadnoughts" and old age pensions, and which will provide an expanding revenue adequate for the growing needs of a democratic and civilised state for the next ten years. You cannot, therefore, contend that the Free Trade system is bankrupt. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the Sinking Fund?"] That ground of argument has now, I think, been abandoned. What the next step will be I do not know; but I saw an extraordinary letter in "The Times" last Saturday from
126
Lord Salisbury, who called himself an "unorthodox Tariff Reformer." He went further than I or anybody on this side of the House who tries to conduct our Debates with decency and in order would care to go, in describing the policy of hon. Gentlemen who are associated with Tariff Reform. He said that to try and foist food taxes on the people of this country at the present moment was "treachery to the State." It almost seems to me that that will be the third step in the Cecilian policy to be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition, whatever his demerits, is a man of open mind. He is a man with no great settled convictions. He reminds me of a lady on board a liner who was very friendly with a passenger, and when he asked her whether she was married, she replied, "I am not a bigotted married woman." Whatever may be said of the right hon. Gentleman no one can say he is wedded to Tariff Reform. I believe he would not object to a little graceful philandering with his Free Trade relative, the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). Let me say, in conclusion, that next Wednesday will be a red-letter day in the history of democracy in this country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had to contend with many and many a difficulty in passing through the House this complicated measure of finance, but he will have his reward in days to come. He will live in the memory of the poorest of the poor.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I must just say one word before I touch on the subject of the Budget with regard to what fell from the last speaker. He stated that we on this side hated the Budget. I can assure him that I do not hate the Budget, because if it had not been for it I might not at the present time have been a Member of this House. At all events, I think we can all agree that the hon. Member spoke with very great moderation of speech and also with very great oratorical effect. He made remarks about another place. One thing I have always heard when I have heard discussions on that other place was that there was more oratory there than here. Hon. Members will agree with me that we have just had an oratorical effort which would certainly knock out any peer, and, in consequence, I think we should speak up for ourselves. I sincerely trust we shall see, when the 500 elect put in an appearance

127
in another place, the hon. Member himself will be one of those who answer the bell when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary rings it in the next Parliament. Of course the Budget is an old story for old Members here, but for some of the new Members, and especially those who were returned in order to oppose it, and who have had no chance of doing so, it is not so uninteresting. The hon. Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Markham) said that no Tory in their part of the world among their opponents had discussed the Budget, and that the candidates who had been standing against them never mentioned it, and had run away from it. That is of course the very reason why we have the pleasure of their company here at the present moment, and I cannot say that I regret it. At any rate, speaking for myself, I did discuss the Budget, and another subject which does not come in here, the Veto. Although the hon. Member for Mansfield said he was returned on the Budget, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel) said he was returned on the Veto. On that occasion the House may remember he drew tears from the Prime Minister by saying that if the Veto were not taken first he would be made a fool of in his constituency. I am glad he has been saved.
It has been proved that two of our general contentions were well founded. The first was that the Budget was not purely a finance measure at all, and the second point was, and we certainly had very good proof of it, that of hon. Members opposite hardly one of them admired the Budget for its financial proposals, but rather for all the rest of the legislation that was tacked on to it. I have gone through all the speeches in the last few days, and only one hon. Member said a word about the financial side, while all the other hon. Members alluded to the electioneering side of the Budget. This proves at once that it is not a measure of finance. I was wrong as to the number of Members who mentioned the Budget, but the hon. Member for Northampton is one of those hon. Members whose mind I cannot quite follow, because he dislikes and went for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, as he naively put it, he had several builders in his constituency who objected to the Land Clauses. No doubt the local paper will have a long
128
account of his speech, and point out that he went for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it will not state what I do, that having gone for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he voted with him. That is not what I call honest politics. If you want to denounce the Budget you should also vote against it. Our Leader stated very accurately and concisely the way in which agricultural land is directly taxed, and I need not touch upon that, but I can state the way in which it is indirectly taxed in regard to whisky. I think after the statements we have heard that it must be apparent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as was said by one hon. Member, that the 3s. 9d. duty on whisky has to go in the near future, and if it is not taken off there is going to be a storm in the Nationalist camp in a very short time, but Scotland may also ask why she has been selected to bear this particular tax also. The reason is not far to seek, because when the Government tried to put a tax on beer it lost them several thousands of votes. It was perfectly easy to put a tax on whisky in Ireland because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that if he put it on there, much as they objected to it, he could bring in the Nationalist Members with a cry and a promise of Home Rule. He knew he was perfectly safe in that, and as far as my own country, Scotland, is concerned, he knew that the Radicals there were so Tory that nothing could shake them, and he knew that the greater majority of Members who are not Scotch would be perfectly docile. But in regard to the indirect effects of this taxation, I want to say one word about the farmers in Perthshire, Morayshire and Banff and other Scotch counties, who grow a great deal of barley, which is one of their staple industries. They have been almost ruined. The average yield of barley per acre is about five quarters, and each quarter of barley produces about twenty gallons of whisky. It is said that land is the source of all wealth, and therefore I think we might also say that in consequence, all taxation falls upon it and the duty of 11s. a gallon, at this rate of produce, would amount to a £55 tax per acre, and with the extra 3s. 9d. it means £73 15s. per acre of barley.
Mr. FLAVIN: Is the Noble Lord aware that since the Budget was introduced barley last harvest carried record prices throughout the United Kingdom?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am very sorry that I am not aware of that fact. I know that it used to command 33s., and farmers now get 18s. for their barley. In one particular district the trade has fallen so much that the chairman of the Great Northern Railway stated that the freights on whisky had gone down about £5,000 on that railway, and that shows the amount of the decrease. These farmers are not like distillers; they are a more ignorant type of person. They do not read the papers every day, and the result was that they put their crops in, and never realised that when they reaped it it would have fallen some 35 per cent. The result is that these crops have gone down 35 per cent, and the land will have to be put to some use which involves very much labour, and that means that agriculture has been decidedly hit indirectly in this particular case. I could say a good deal more, but I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to explain why we are to swallow the Budget without a chance of discussing it, though we have been returned in order to oppose it.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Like the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I feel that I owe an apology for trespassing on the House on the Budget. He and I have spoken so often on the subject during the past eight or nine months that I am sure he feels, like myself, that we would rather have left further talking on the matter to someone else. At the same time, I think it will be necessary to make a few observations in reply to criticisms which have been passed. The Noble Lord who has just sat down said he is in this House because of the unpopularity of the Budget. His constituency seems to form an exception to the rest of Scotland, because Scotland at the last election returned at least one more Member in support of the Budget than was returned in the Parliament of 1906. The only further observation I would make is that a constituency which believes that by this Budget you are imposing £73 an acre on barley would really believe anything. But it is a very fair illustration of the kind of exaggeration which has been used in criticising the Budget, and I congratulate the Noble Lord upon being the only one who has taken part in the Debate who has had the courage to repeat these exaggerations in the House of Commons. The criticisms that we are familiar with on the platform about the Budget I have never heard here. I have listened during the last three or four days in vain for the kind of wild state-
130
ment which has been made on the platform with the hope of getting a chance of refuting it, but I have not had it. There was an hon. Member from Ulster who spoke to-night. Someone gave me a leaflet which he circulated about the Budget. I waited to see whether he would repeat the statements which he had made in his own constituency—statements by which he turned out my Friend, Mr. T, W. Russell. This is the sort of statement he made:—
"The Budget imposes at least six new taxes, and increases seven old ones, every one of which will fall upon the fanner and the labourer."
10.0 P.M.
The Super-tax will be borne by the South Tyrone labourer. The Motor Taxes —the Ulster agricultural labourer will pay upon his sixty horse-power Napier a great deal more than he used to do formerly. The millionaire's Death Duties will be paid by the Ulster labourer. I will give another illustration of the sort of statement made on the Ulster platform, but not repeated here:—
"The Budget proposes to raise over £10,000,000 by heavier taxes on ten sugar, coffee, cocoa, and such articles as that."
Half the tax on sugar taken off by the previous Budget, and not a penny put on now. Nothing put on either tea, coffee, cocoa, or any articles of food, and yet this hon. Gentleman says £10,000,000 are put on. That is how the hon. Member got here to vote against the Budget. The sort of statement he made about the Income Tax is a very fair sample of the statement which was made in Ireland about it:—
"Under the Increment Tax Duty it compels you to pay a tax of 20 per cent, on any improvement in the value of your farm if at any time yon should desire to sell it."
The only answer to that is that it is not true, and the hon. and learned Gentleman dare not repeat it here. And yet these are the statements made on every platform in Ireland in denouncing the Budget. The hon. Gentleman made a speech here of quite a different character. It is rather remarkable that although the £500,000 a year imposed upon Ireland as taxation is crushing and oppressive, the £2,850,000 given to Ireland is not worth taking into account. It is six times the amount, but it should not be mentioned in the ledger at all. Here is another thing I should like to say to the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien), as well as to the hon. Member (Mr. Horner). I have heard a good deal about the £2,000,000 imposed by this

131
Budget on Ireland. I have asked over and over again for particulars. I have never had them. They are simply a nice round figure. Any other sum would do just as well. But never have I heard a single attempt in this House to justify a single item in that £2,000,000. At least I have given full particulars of my £500,000, and I am prepared to justify every one of them when they are challenged, but they have not been challenged; and I am awaiting with a good deal of interest, not mere vague denunciations, but some attempt at analysis of these taxes and some attempt to prove that these £2,000,000 are something beside a mere figment of the imagination. [An HON. MEMBER: "They cannot do it."] That is why I am challenging it with such confidence.
There is another thing I should like, to say before I dismiss the subject of Ireland. Whenever hon. Members who criticise this Budget from the Irish point of view refer to the bills for which the taxes were imposed, if they happen to sit below the Gangway, they say it is for "Dreadnoughts." Hon. Gentlemen from Ulster who criticise the Budget never say a word about "Dreadnoughts." If you left "Dreadnoughts" out of account altogether, and I have done it for the purpose of striking a balance in the account with Ireland, £2,850,000 in the finance scheme, of which this Budget is a part, is given to Ireland without a penny spent upon "Dreadnoughts." Old age pensions, relief of congestion in the West of Ireland, a Catholic university, all these are items for the benefit of Ireland And I do say it is trifling and mean when we had no Member from Ireland getting up and saying, "We do not want them." after they are paid, for the hon. Member for Cork and others to come here and say, "We never asked for them." They do not say that they object to them. On the contrary, in this egregious leaflet from Ulster, one of the charges it brings against Home Rule is that under Home Rule you could not finance old age pensions, and that I believe is what the hon. Member for Cork says. Well, here we have financed old age pensions, and all we have asked from Ireland is one-fifth of the cost. The hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Gentleman for an Ulster constituency say: "This is an oppressive demand from Ireland." I venture to say that never was there a more moderate demand put forward by any British Minister, or one when there was so much given and so little asked. I
132
believe the real reason is that Ireland is poor in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Hear, hear.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman cheers that, as if he had discovered it for the first time. We said so last year when he was not here, and when hon. Gentlemen now sitting behind him were criticising the taxes, fighting night after night till five and six in the morning in order to wring from the Government concessions for their country. There is no doubt at all that is the reason. The reason is that you cannot exact the same proportion of taxation out of a poor country, and what is true of Ireland is true of the poorer districts of England, Scotland and Wales. One of the features of this Budget which has been ignored entirely is that the proportion which Ireland pays to the general taxation has been considerably diminished by this Budget. Next year the proportion will be still less. Why? Because the increased taxation will come directly from the richer classes, and not from indirect taxation, so that year by year, as the Land Taxes, the Death Duties, the Spirit Tax, and all those other taxes increase their yield, the proportion of Ireland will go steadily down and the benefits will go up. I should have expected the hon. Member for Cork to be generous enough—I will not say generous enough, but fair enough, when stating his case, at least not to ignore that part of the matter. He has talked a great deal about the Financial Relations Commission. I do not repudiate its findings, but undoubtedly a great deal has happened since then to redress the balance.
I should like to say a word with regard to licences. I have one general comment to make upon the criticism about licences. This is the fourth day of the discussion on the Budget in the new Parliament, and it is very remarkable that, although we have had three or four days' discussion upon it, this is the first day the publicans have been remembered at all.
Mr. YOUNGER: I mentioned them before.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member mentioned them in a very casual sort of way. I am talking now of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite. This is the first day which has been devoted to an examination of the publican's grievance. At any rate, I think he deserves something better than

133
that. We had a day or two given to the landlord, and he has only contributed a little support at the election. The publican did far more at the last election. He is the man who enabled the voters to appreciate Tariff Reform. He is the man who put them in a frame of mind to "damn the consequences," and yet it is only on the fourth day he comes in. Well, I think that is rather hard on him. What I have got to say about licences and about the publican's grievance as this. Every individual case that has been given has been proved to be an exaggeration. I will take the case given by one of the fairest controversialists in the House, the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). He started quoting from a letter which appeared in the papers the other day the case of a publican with an annual rental of £2,000 who claimed that under this Bill he will have to pay £1,000. He will pay nothing of the sort. If he paid £1,000 at all, it would be on an enormous turn-over. The hon. Member overlooked the whole of the remissions which give him relief. I venture to challenge the hon. and learned Member. I should be quite willing to take his own individual examination of the case. Let him put the case into the hands of a valuer under the Bill, and I should be surprised if the publican paid one-fifth of what he claimed to pay.
Mr. CAVE: The minimum under the Bill is more than one-fifth.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept the correction. I should be very surprised if he paid more than his minimum under the Bill. There is a great difference between £250 and £1,000. It is an enormous difference. I say that in every individual case I have examined it turns out to be a case where the publican has rather exaggerated. I have no doubt it has been done under a sincere misapprehension as to the burden that will fall upon him. He believes all the electioneering stuff that has been taught to him, but when he begins to work the Bill he will find that it is not nearly so alarming as he has been taught to believe by his own champions. Why, if all the publicans were to pay all the money they apprehend they have to pay, it is not £2,000,000 I would get. It is at least £5,000,000. That is one general observation I desire to make with regard to the publican. The other observation I desire to make is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in criticising the Licence Duties forget that even now we are charging less than is charged in New York, and that in
134
many of the States higher Licence Duties are charged. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that we would not treat any other trade in this way. But this is not an ordinary trade. It is all very well to say, "You try it on butchers." But if you gave butchers a monopoly and restricted their number in a town to so many; if you said that the number of butchers were not to increase, but that by the machinery of the law they were steadily to diminish in number year by year, you would soon get butchers very ready to pay a high monopoly licence for this protection. That is what is forgotten by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by all those who criticise our provisions with regard to licences. We have asked simply for some return for a valuable monopoly which is granted by the State, and some return, I may add, for a very valuable freehold created by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in 1904, when an annual tenancy was converted into a valuable permanent freehold. What return does the State ask for it? This is the first time when a return is asked at all, and I say that the return we ask for is a perfectly fair and legitimate one under the circumstances. So much for the licences. We may probably hear something more about it to-morrow.
Mr. BALFOUR: We cannot under your Closure arrangement.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. There is a great deal he can say on the Bill even as altered by us in regard to that. He will find that there is at least a whole page of Amendments under which he can discuss a great deal, and, at any rate, he can discuss a great deal more than he can with reference to agricultural land. I have not much to say as regards the general Debate. One thing that struck me very much is that the finance of the Budget has not been challenged at all. I listened very carefully through the whole of the hours in which this Debate has proceeded, and never once have I heard any criticism or any challenge of the Budget as a financial instrument. Would the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), instead of laughing, give me the name of any particular case?
Mr. PRETYMAN: The speech of the Member for East Worcestershire.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is a discourtesy to his right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman should have made that observation. I listened carefully to what

135
the right hon. Gentleman said. He criticised the Budget, but he said he would not enter into those questions. Then he proceeded at once to go into the licences.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have criticised, I think, with reason the new taxes of the right hon. Gentleman as financial weapons.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: To-day?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me in every speech to cover the whole of the ground?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: One would have thought that when the right hon. Gentleman criticised the Budget he would have criticised its finance, at any rate, on its Second Reading. Of course, after all, a Budget is a method of raising money, and in that respect this Budget has succeeded. It succeeded to such an extent that, in spite of the fact that a great many taxes will not be collected in full, you have still got a balance of £2,900,000.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Sinking Fund.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am referring to that in my very next observation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire says, "What about the Sinking Fund?" If the Sinking Fund had been deducted there would still have been left a surplus of £200,000. But what about the taxes we have not been able to collect —£600,000 Stamps, £350,000 Income Tax, and £350,000 paying interest. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Whose fault?"] Hon. Members have asked me "Whose fault?" I will tell them. It is the fault of those who prevented the Bill becoming law in December last. We should have had at least £1,000,000 more under the Spirit Duty if the Bill had gone through. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I have already explained that. It is for the simple reason that it would not have been necessary to deplete the stocks down to the very lowest if it were known that the Budget were going through. So that really if the Bill had gone through the House of Lords we would have had a surplus, after paying the £2,700,000 from the Sinking Fund, of £2,500,000.
I am not at all surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should not have thought it necessary on the Second Reading of the Bill to criticise the financial proposals of
136
the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman said that it would injuriously affect the credit of the country. He had the usual Tariff Reform depreciation of the credit of the country. All I can say is that a criticism which is based upon the present price of Consols, and coming from the other side of the House at the present juncture, is a singularly shabby one. Why are Consols down at the present moment? Simply because we have borrowed large sums of money in the market, and because the Finance Bill is not through. Dees anybody who knows anything about the money market deny that the mere fact that we have to borrow £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 would not affect the money market? I should not have thought that anyone would have doubted that. But, in addition to that, from the tact that the Sinking Fund had to lie suspended for the same reason, we had not got the money to sustain the Consols market, and. naturally, the Consols would go down. Yet the party who have been responsible for all that come here and taunt us with the consequences of their own wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said that borrowing is the real test of the credit of the country. What country could borrow as we have borrowed even recently? Let him take Germany. He is constantly referring to Germany—the German tariff, the German Navy, and everything German. [An HON. MEMBER: "Black bread."] And German black bread. What did Germany borrow at? Germany borrowed at 4 per cent. We borrowed at 3 per cent, and 99½. Let him look at the condition of Germany at the present moment and compare it with ours. No House of Lords threw out their Budget, and still they have a deficit of £8,000,000, and they have paid nothing with respect to the Debt. On the contrary, they are borrowing even to build their "Dreadnoughts." We, on the other hand, paid about £3,500,000 in respect of the Debt; we have paid huge Supplementary Estimates of over £1,000,000; in addition to that, we have a surplus of £2,900,000, which is available for payment of the Debt, instead of having a deficit; and we can look forward next year not to a deficit of £8,000,000 like Germany, but we can look forward with confidence to be able to pay our way. What greater triumph can there be for our present system than that? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that not the Budget, but speeches in support of the Budget have damaged our credit. What has happened since the

137
Budget was introduced and since those speeches were made? Trade has improved steadily, unemployment has gone down steadily. The City has had the greatest time in its life. The Noble Lord is very scornful of the Stock Exchange, but he ought to remember that his Leader represents the Stock Exchange. Capital, so far from being frightened, has been gambled in the City. That is the state of things. We are told that as a result of the Budget and the speeches made in support of the Budget that capital is leaving our shores. It is quite the reverse. I agree that in one sense it is leaving our shores, as our exports are increasing month by month; and I have not the faintest doubt that we are on the road, on the clear road, for one of the greatest trade booms that this country has ever seen. Every attempt has been made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by themselves on their platforms, by their Press, in the House of Lords and here, to try to frighten trade and commerce and the interests of this country, and what is the result? Every trade has prospered in this country except whisky. That, is the only trade which hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe, could prove has been in the slightest degree damaged by the Budget. [An HON. MEMBER: "The building trade."] The building trade is improving. If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me will just look at the statistics of unemployment he will find that the numbers are steadily going down in the building trade, as well as in the other trades. There is not a single legitimate trade in this country, except the whisky trade, which has in the slightest degree been affected. As a matter of fact, after twelve months of the Budget, we find ourselves, in spite of the action of the House of Lords, with the prospect of a great surplus of £3,000,000, trade improving, and credit and confidence getting stronger day after day.
Mr. BALFOUR: I sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one respect. I agree with him that those who like my right hon. Friend near me, and like himself have been occupied in discussing this Budget for twelve months, do not come with that freshness of zest, the same edge of appetite as some of my hon. Friends who have not had the opportunity either of hearing our Debates or taking part in them. I therefore do not regret that the time left me is limited to half an hour, provided the House will understand, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not
138
appear to understand, and that is that if you have only a limited time for discussing a great public matter, you ought not to be blamed for leaving out some very important aspects of it. Anything more extraordinary or more ungenerous than the taunt thrown across the floor of the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we on this side did not devote as much time as he thinks ought to be devoted to the Licence Duties I never heard. What opportunity have we had of discussing them. If the Licence Duties had come first in the Resolutions passed last week no doubt the Licence Duties would have been discussed up to the time the guillotine fell. You cannot expect, and no Government has ever expected, the Opposition to apportion the time given for the discussion of important questions if they think that time grossly under-estimated and most unjust in its operation. Nobody expects or could expect that there should be great trouble to shorten Debate on important questions, in order that all the questions should be discussed. We discussed at not undue length the questions brought before us. We brought forward objections to the Government Budget and to the exploded Government pretensions. The Government made no answer. They were saved by the guillotine, and by the guillotine alone, from the discreditable confession which they would have had to make if Debate had been free. With regard to the Land Taxes, they put up the First Lord of the Admiralty, who knew nothing about them, to make a defence which was absolutely blown to shatters, and the Minister who followed the First Lord did not attempt to defend him, but allowed his case to go by the Board. They never were brought to the specific admission that all their statements through the country that agricultural land is not taxed under this Bill were a hollow pretension and a shameless sham; they were not brought to that admission for this reason, and this reason alone, that the Closure Resolutions prevented the discussion running its natural course, and the Government were able to take refuge, as they have often taken refuge before, behind something which is more forcible than the most forcible arguments and more effective than the most unanswerable objection. Then, having found this shelter behind the closure, they come down and reproach us for not having discussed some great interests which were not discussed, which ought to have been discussed, but which

139
could not be discussed because the Government prevented their discussion. I can understand many objections being made by the Government to the course taken by the Opposition. Governments always object to the course taken by the Opposition. But that a Government which has used the gag Resolutions as they have never been used before on the Budget should come down and reproach the Opposition for not having discussed certain big questions in the time left to them seems to me not only preposterous, but the most ungenerous objection ever urged by the tyrant against the slave.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was virtuously indignant with my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone for some leaflets which he circulated in his constituency. I have not seen those leaflets, but we know that a leaflet has been brought before the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman)—a leaflet circulated about the Budget not by a single candidate here and there, but by the authorised exponent of the Budget, under Government patronage, the Budget League, presided over by a Cabinet Minister, and the secretary of which has been quite properly rewarded with office. My hon. Friend pointed out that this authoritative document was full of the sheerest mis-statements from beginning to end—not exaggerations, but falsehoods. The candid supporter of the Government who sits for the Mansfield Division (Mr. Markham), and who speaks with happy independence of all parties and all considerations, admitted that the pamphlet was full of falsehoods. Of course he was right. Then why reproach a single Member of this House with a pamphlet which the right hon. Gentleman thinks was inaccurate, when he and his friends were directly responsible for the extraordinary mis-statements made in the leaflet of the Budget League? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be more cautious in his attacks when he is necessarily putting himself in such a position when it comes to a question of defence.
There is one point I must make in regard to the contention made by one Minister after another in their arguments with the Irish Members. I never have agreed with the contentions of the Irish Members upon the subject of Irish taxation, but I must say that the methods adopted by the Government to prove to
140
the Irish Members that they were extremely well treated by the Budget are really the most extraordinary I have ever heard. What is it they say? They say: "The Budget taxes you only to the extent of £435,000 a year. Think how much we have done for Ireland in other legislation. This Bill gives to Ireland so many thousands a year. That Bill gives to Ireland so many other thousands a year." So they pile on the account on the other side. That may be perfectly legitimate when you are discussing the broad question of Ireland's share in the general taxation of the country. It does not affect particular Budgets. Because this Government have brought forward in one year an Old Age Pensions Act, is that a reason for overtaxing Ireland in a general Bill? Is that a reason for taxing Ireland specially in a Budget which is for the whole of the country?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Budget is for the purpose of paying that money.
Mr. BALFOUR: All Budgets are for the purpose of paying all debts due by the State. It is quite true that all social reform is expensive— that all social reform has to be paid for out of the Imperial or a local Budget. To that proposition we all agree. But when you bring forward a Budget you bring it forward on its merits, and as equal between different parts of the United Kingdom. You have no right to say, "Something outside the Budget did you so much good that you ought to tolerate provisions in the Budget which, apart from that Bill, you would not tolerate." That is not a form of argument which I have ever known used in this House. It is perfectly fair upon a discussion of the relative burdens of taxation in Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to say that Ireland gets so much and pays so much, and you may argue the question of the relative burdens upon different portions of the Kingdom upon that basis. But when you are bringing forward a Budget it is not business to say: "It is quite true this Budget may throw a burden upon Ireland that Irishmen have a right to object to, but then remember what we have done for Ireland in other Bills in other years and in other times." I hold the view myself that Ireland has gained financially, at all events in the period of time that I have any direct experience of public matters, by its. financial connection with Great Britain. That is my view. I know Irishmen do not agree. But I have never heard it suggested, and it has never been suggested by

141
a Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Irishmen had a right to be accorded other than Fair treatment, because, say, the Irish Land Purchase Act gave to Ireland the benefit of Imperial credit. You should not mix up the two things. The whole argument, adopted first by the Postmaster-General, then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then in other speeches by other Members of the Government, seems to deal with that aspect of the question, and seems to me to be wholly and utterly fallacious.
In the very few minutes in which I will further trouble the House let me go back to what I have always considered the fundamental objection to this Budget. That is that it raises funds for public purposes unequally as between different forms of property. It is oppressive in the sense that it deals arbitrarily and unequally with persons of equal wealth. There may be many objections, I think there are the gravest objections, to many portions of the Budget, not open to that objection. I think there are very serious objections, for example, to the Super-tax, though, whatever else can be said against the Super-tax itself, it is not open to that particular criticism. When we turn to the Super-tax or the Death Duties, both of them, I think, are open to serious objection, but, when we turn to the other taxes of the Bill, we find this Government have not accidentally, but deliberately, not as a mere inevitable incident in the difficult circumstances in which a Chancellor of the Exchequer may find himself, but of set purpose they have selected arbitrarily certain forms of property which they thought were either unpopular or were easily attacked, and they have thrown upon them an unjust share of the common burdens of the community. There cannot be a better illustration of that than the way they have treated the licensed trade. There are many illustrations that could be drawn from the Budget. One illustration is enough, and that, I think, is admirably supplied by the treatment the Government have accorded to one particular trade.
What defence has been given either by the Postmaster-General or the Chanceller of the Exchequer, who has just sat down? In the original statement of the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that, while a great burden was thrown in the first instance upon the licensed trade by the Spirit Duties, that burden would be gradually and enormously diffused throughout the whole community by a
142
corresponding rise in prices to the consumer, and that was his defence. We have seen exactly what has happened. It has been impossible for that diffusion of burden to take place, because directly there was an attempt to raise the price consumption fell off, and, therefore, the justification given by the Chancellor by which he admitted that burden was intended to be diffused over the community has entirely broken down. The Whisky Duty remains a burden, not upon the community, but on a particular trade in the community. And what is true of whisky is true in a still stronger instance of the Licence Duty. I think the way the Government have treated the Licence Duties and the way they have defended their treatment of them really constitute a scandal on justice of which this House ought to be the guardian. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that previous Chancellors in previous years have gone to the makers and sellers of beer and have thrown upon them burdens for the conduct of great wars or for other public purposes, and that these burdens have been diffused over the community. I think it is very possible, and that it is a fact that was so. But is it the fact under the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman? He took a falling trade—a trade in which, from causes quite outside the Budget consumption, was diminishing, and he threw upon it, partly in the form of brewers' licences and partly in the form of licences upon public-houses, a burden quite impossible for any trade to bear without suffering loss which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could legitimately impose on any class of the community. And the burden is grossly unequal in its incidence. If you take a publican in London and compare his lot with a publican in the country, where the wages are different, you will find that the publican in London is grossly overtaxed. If you take a man whose premises have a very large rateable value he is overtaxed. If you take two breweries with the same amount of capital, one invested in public-houses and the the other not, you will find that one is enormously burdened by this tax and the other is left scot-free so far as the Licence Duties on public-houses are concerned. If you compare the man who sells beer in the public-house with the club that buys beer in the ordinary course of its business you find the inequality is still greater. Do observe how that increases the original inequality of the tax. Of course, in the case of a falling trade, production will

143
naturally flow into the cheapest channel. When the demand is rapidly increasing all channels are full, and there axe cheap channels and dear channels alike. But when there is a falling trade consumption diminishes, and, of course, the trend is to send the production down the road that is untaxed, or lightly taxed, and take it | from the heavily and arbitrarily taxed. That is what you are doing. The result is that you find certain members of the trade who for this reason or that are lightly taxed under your system will get what remains of the trade, and others will be made bankrupt and expelled altogether from the livelihood which they have hitherto honestly conducted.
Compare the position of a public-house and the position of a club under your new rules. You have inevitably driven the channels of consumption into the club and away from the public-house—into the institution which is not inspected away from the institution which is inspected, and in so doing you have indeed given no advantage or benefit to the club, but you have inflicted undeserved ruin upon the publican. Sir, there was a phrase in the Postmaster-General's speech which I heard with astonishment. He said that undoubtedly a few public-houses would be driven out of existence by the Budget. Why the epithet "few"? I think it was the Lord Advocate who said that one-fourth would be driven out of existence. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is perhaps a higher authority upon questions of financial fact, admitted that a very large number are to be destroyed. He has boasted that this is a great temperance measure. Has the House considered at what cost to our public character and credit this temperance measure is being carried out? For the first time, as far as I know, in the annals of this House, appeals to plain and obvious justice fall oil deaf ears. You may prove to this House to demonstration by figures which have never been denied, and cannot be denied, that you are taxing citizens of this country unequally, and as a result of that policy you are ruining those whom you are deliberately oppressing. That was stated over and over again in the autumn, and you never denied or refuted it then. It cannot be denied. I remember a Socialist Member of this House, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) defending the Budget in this way. He said, "I admit this Budget is unequal, and I regret it." He, at all events, had the courage
144
of his opinions. He would have liked, and I am quite sure, if he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would have carried out his wishes, when meaning to tax certain degrees of wealth out of existence, at all events to tax them equally. He admitted the inequality. Lee hon. Gentlemen be as honest as he is. They are, in voting for this Budget, as they mean to do to-night, whether they know it or not, inflicting this great and permanent injury upon the character of this House and of this country. They are, for the first time, so far as I know, finally passing into law—for this is almost the penultimate stage of this Budget—provisions which, by the admission of every candid inquirer on their side and on ours, inflicts exceptional burdens on particular classes.
To those who think there ought to be no accumulated property—who think that is a social system which ought sooner or later to be abolished, it may be a tolerable policy. They may regret the temporary inequality and injustice, as the hon. Member for Blackburn regrets them; but at all events they are fairly consistent. But those who think, as the majority of hon. Members opposite do, that the right of a man to his accumulated property is one which does not merely concern him, but also concerns the community of which he is a member, that the expediency of justice in dealing as between different kinds of property has to be looked at not merely from the point of view of the individual, but also of the community to which the individual belongs, and that the social welfare depends upon this kind of fiscal justice being meted out to citizens of the same community, will see in this Budget a new departure, a disastrous departure, and a sinister commencement of a new system. Let them well consider what lies behind the principles advocated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Government. They will find those principles are meaningless and purposeless unless they are intended to look up to the consummation which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn honestly and sincerely desires. To those who do not wish the end aimed at by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, this Budget is a monument of ineptitude, because it shakes to the foundations the very elements of that great commercial society in which they believe, or profess to believe, as well as us—that commercial society based upon private rights and upon the equality of rights as regards property, based upon

145
foundations upon which hitherto all civilised society has depended, and which they have shaken in interests other than their own, doing nothing, justifying nothing, bringing forward no principles whatever, so far as I can judge, to show why this kind of property should be spared and the other kind of property taxed, and why we should enter upon a new régime in which the object, and the whole object, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be to see how the burden of the national expenditure should be diffused among all
classes of the community, but how he should choose out here and there this section or that section, this interest or that interest, for bearing some special and undeserved share of the burden which ought to be the common portion of us all.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 242.

Division No. 60.]

AYES.

[10.58 p.m.

Abraham, William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hindle, Frederick George

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Hodge, John

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

Cullinan, John

Hogan, Michael

Agnew, George William

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Holt, Richard Durning

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hooper, Arthur George

Alden Percy

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

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Allen, Charles Peter

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Dawes, James Arthur

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Armitage, Robert

Delany, William

Hudson, Walter

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Devlin, Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Dillon, John

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Donelan, Captain A.

Johnson, William

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Doris, William

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott

Duffy, William J.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barnes, George N.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Edwards, Enoch

Jowett, Frederick William

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Joyce, Michael

Barton, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Keating, Matthew

Beale, William Phipson

Esslemont, George Birnie

Kelly, Edward

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Farrell, James Patrick

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Fenwick, Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Bentham, George Jackson

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Lambert, George

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ffrench, Peter

Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.)

Black, Arthur W.

Field, William

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Boland, John Pius

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Leach, Charles

Bottomley, Horatio

France, Gerald Ashburner

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Levy, Sir Maurice

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Lewis, John Herbert

Brace, William

Gibbins, F. W.

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Gibson, James Puckering

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Brigg, Sir John

Gill, Alfred Henry

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Brocklehurst, William B.

Gianville, Harold James

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Bryce, John Annan

Glover, Thomas

Lundon, Thomas

Burke, E. Haviland-

Greenwood, Granville George

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Greig, Colonel James William

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Gulland, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Byles, William Pollard

Hackett, John

M'Callum, John M.

Cameron, Robert

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

Hancock, John George

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc. Spalding)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Mallet, Charles Edward

Chancellor, Henry George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Manfield, Harry

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Marks, George Croydon

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Martin, Joseph

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Harwood, George

Masterman, C. F. G.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

Clough, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Clynes, John R.

Haworth, Arthur A.

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

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Menzies, Sir Walter

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Middlebrook, William

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Millar, James Duncan

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Molloy, Michael

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Molteno, Percy Alport

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Henry Charles Solomon

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Cowan, William Henry

Higham, John Sharp

Mooney, John J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Rees, John David

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rendall, Athelstan

Toulmin, George

Muldoon, John

Richards, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Twist, Henry

Muspratt, Max

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Verney, Frederick William

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Vivian, Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

Wadsworth, John

Nuttall, Harry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Walton, Joseph

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wardle, George J.

O'Dowd, John

Rowntree, Arnold

Waring, Walter

Ogden, Fred

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

O'Grady, James

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waterlow, David Sydney

O'Malley, William

Scanlan, Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

O'Shee, James John

Seddon, James A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

Whitehouse, John Howard

Pearce, William

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Sheehy, David

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Shortt, Edward

Wiles, Thomas

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wilkie, Alexander

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Snowden, P.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Pointer, Joseph

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Summers, James Woolley

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

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

Sutherland, John E.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Sutton, John E.

Winfrey, Richard

Pringle, William M. R.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Radford, George Heynes

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Tennant, Harold John

Young, William (Perth, East)

Painy, Adam Rolland

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

Reddy, Michael

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

of Ellbank and Mr. Fuller.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

NOES.

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

Adam, Major William A.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cator, John

Fell, Arthur

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Cautley, Henry Strother

Finlay, Sir Robert

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cave, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Baird, John Lawrence

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Fleming, Valentine

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

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

Fletcher, John Samuel

Balcarres, Lord

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Forster, Henry William

Baldwin, Stanley

Clive, Percy Archer

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

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

Coates, Major Edward F.

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Barnston, Harry

Cooper, Richd. Ashmole (Walsall)

Gilmour, Captain John

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Courthope, George Loyd

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Goldsmith, Frank

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Gordon, John

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Craik, Sir Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Crean, Eugene

Grant, James Augustus

Beresford, Lord Charles

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Greene, Walter Raymond

Bird, Alfred

Croft, Henry Page

Gretton, John

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Guiney, Patrick

Boyton, James

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Guinness, Hon Walter Edward

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastb'rne)

Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Haddock, George Baker

Bridgeman, William Clive

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Duke, Henry Edward

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Burdett-Coutts, William

Duncannon, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Butcher, John George (York)

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Haray, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Harris, F. L. (T'r Hamlets, Stepney)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

148

149

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Mallaby-Deeley Harry

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Mason, James F.

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Mitchell, William Foot

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

Morrison, Captain James A.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Stanier, Beville

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Newdegate, F. A.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Newman, John R. P.

Starkey, John Ralph

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Horner, Andrew Long

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Nield, Herbert

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tch.)

Hunt, Rowland

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Strauss, Arthur

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Sykes, Alan John

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Thompson, Robert

Keswick, William

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Kimber, Sir Henry

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

Valentia, Viscount

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Perkins, Walter Frank

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Knott, James

Peto, Basil Edward

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Quilter, William Eley C.

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)

Lewisham, Viscount

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Llewelyn, Venables

Rankin, Sir James

Willoughby, Major Hn. Claude

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Winterton, Earl

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

Ridley, Samuel Forde

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Rolleston, Sir John

Yerburgh, Robert

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Rothschild, Lionel de

M'Arthur, Charles

Royds, Edmund

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Rutherford, Watson

Maurice Healy and Mr. Gilhooly.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Salter, Arthur Clavell

And, it being after Eleven of the clock. Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th April, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Eleven o'clock this day:—
Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 242.

Division No. 61.]

AYES.

[11.12 p.m.

Abraham, William

Bentham, George Jackson

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

Black, Arthur W.

Clancy, John Joseph

Agnew, George William

Boland, John Plus

Clough, William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bottomley, Horatio

Clynes, John R.

Alden Percy

Bowerman, Charles W.

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Allen, Charles Peter

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Brace, William

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

Armitage, Robert

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Brigg, Sir John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Brocklehurst, William B.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Bryce, John Annan

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cowan, William Henry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Barlow, sir John Emmott

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Barnes, George N.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Cullinan, John

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Barry, Edward (Cork, S.)

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Cameron, Robert

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

Barton, William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Beale, William Phipson

Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

Dawes, James Arthur

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Delany, William

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

Chancellor, Henry George

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Devlin, Joseph

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Robinson, Sidney

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dillon, John

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Doris, William

Lundon, Thomas

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Duffy, William J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Rowntree, Arnold

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Edwards, Enoch

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, John M.

Scanlan, Thomas

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Fenwick, Charles

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc. Spalding)

Seddon, James A.

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Mallet, Charles Edward

Seely, Col., Rt. Hon J. E. B.

Ffrench, Peter

Manfield, Harry

Shackleton, David James

Field, William

Marks, George Croydon

Shaw, Sir Charles Edward

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Martin, Joseph

Sheehy, David

France, Gerald Ashburner

Masterman, C. F. G.

Shortt, Edward

Furness, Sir Christopher

Meagher, Michael

Simon, John Allsebrook

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

Gibbins, F. W.

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

Snowden, P.

Gibson, James Puckering

Menzies, Sir Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Gill, Alfred Henry

Middlebrook, William

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Glanville, Harold James

Millar, James Duncan

Spicer, Sir Albert

Glover, Thomas

Molloy, Michael

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Greenwood, Granville George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strachey, Sir Edward

Greig, Colonel James William

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Summers, James Woolley

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Sutherland, John E.

Guest, Capt. Hon. Frederick E.

Mooney, John J.

Sutton, John E.

Gulland, John William

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hackett, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Tennant, Harold John

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Muldoon, John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hancock, John George

Muspratt, Max

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Nolan, Joseph

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nuttall, Harry

Toulmin, George

Harwood, George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Twist, Henry

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Doherty, Philip

Verney, Frederick William

Hazleton, Richard

O'Dowd, John

Vivian, Henry

Helme, Norval Watson

Ogden, Fred

Wadsworth, John

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Grady, James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Walters, John Tudor

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

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Walton, Joseph

Henry Charles Solomon

O'Malley, William

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Wardle, George J.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Waring, Walter

Hindie, Frederick George

O'Shee, James John

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hodge, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Hogan, Michael

Pearce, William

Waterlow, David Sydney

Holt, Richard Durning

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Watt, Henry A.

Hooper, Arthur George

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pointer, Joseph

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Johnson, William

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

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Pringle, William M. R.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Radford, George Heynes

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

Jowett, Frederick William

Rattan, Peter Wilson

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

Joyce, Michael

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Keating, Matthew

Raphael, Herbert Henry

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

Kelly, Edward

Rea, Walter Russell

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Kettle, Thomas Michael

Reddy, Michael

Winfrey, Richard

Kilbride, Denis

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

Lambert, George

Rees, John David

Young, William (Perth, East)

Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Richards, Thomas

Leach, Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

152

153

NOES.

Adam, Major William A.

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Newman, John R. P.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, George Abraham

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gilhooly, James

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gilmour, Captain John

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Attenborough, Walter Annis

Goldsmith, Frank

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Baird, John Lawrence

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Gordon, John

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, James Augustus

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

Greene, Walter Raymond

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guiney, Patrick

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Guinness, Hon Walter Edward

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Barnston, Harry

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastb'rne)

Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc. E.)

Haddock, George Baker

Perkins, Walter Frank

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Peto, Basil Edward

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Pretyman, Ernest George

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Beresford, Lord Charles

Harris, F. L. (T'r Hamlets, Stepney)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bird, Alfred

Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)

Rankin, Sir James

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Boyton, James

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Healy, Timothy Michael

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Brassey, Capt. R. (Oxon, Banbury)

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burdett-Coutts, William

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Rolleston, Sir John

Butcher, John George (York)

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Rothschild, Lionel de

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Royds, Edmund

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Rutherford, Watson

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cator, John

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Horner, Andrew Long

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Cave, George

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Sanderson, Lancelot

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Clay, Captain H. H Spender

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stanier, Beville

Coates, Major Edward F.

Keswick, William

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Colefax, Henry Arthur

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Starkey, John Ralph

Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cooper, Richd. Ashmole (Walsall)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Ceurthope, George Loyd

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Knott, James

Strauss, Arthur

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Sykes, Alan John

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Craik, Sir Henry

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Crean, Eugene

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Lewisham, Viscount

Thompson, Robert

Craft, Henry Page

Llewelyn, Venables

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Tobln, Alfred Aspinall

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Lockyer-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm. Edgbaston)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Duke, Henry Edward

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

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

Duncannon, Viscount

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc, Southport)

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Mackinder, Halford J.

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

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

M'Arthur, Charles

Willoughby, Major Hn. Claude

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Magnus, Sir Philip

Winterton, Earl

Fell, Arthur

Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Finlay, Sir Robert

Mason, James F.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fisher, William Hayes

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fleming, Valentine.

Mitchell, William Foot

Yerburgh, Robert

Fletcher, John Samuel

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Forster, Henry William

Morrison, Captain James A.

Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

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

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Mount, William Arthur

Gardner, Ernest

Newdegate, F. A.

Bill read a Second time, and committed for to-morrow (Tuesday).

DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS ACT (1909) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I trust the House will assist the Government to pass this Bill without any delay, because until it is got through it will be quite impossible to begin operations. We have been pressed, more especially by the agricultural community of the country, to commence operations at once. We already have a sum of £400,000, and we have another £500,000 voted in the Bill; but nothing can be done for agricultural research, or for otherwise carrying out the various operations which the agricultural community have pressed on successive Governments, until the Bill has been carried into law. It is a very simple, measure, and first of all provides for increasing the number of Commissioners from five to ten. We do not, of course, propose to increase the number of paid Commissioners. There will be only one paid Commissioner extra; the rest will be all voluntary Commissioners. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is an extra Commissioner."] There is an aggregate of £3,000, whatever the case may be. But no change is contemplated in that respect. The reason why we are doubling the number of Commissioners is this. We find it quite impossible to get all the various interests in the matter fully represented on the Board without doubling the number. There were various kinds of big agricultural interests which were pressing for some kind of representation on the Board, and it was quite impossible to meet their case without doubling the number of Commissioners.
Within the last few weeks I have had deputations from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Central Land Committee—I think that is the name of it—the Farmers' Committee, and various other bodies, pressing me to put on a certain kind of man to represent their views. That would be quite out of the question unless the number were doubled. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that on the whole it was better to appoint ten rather than five, one retiring every year instead of every alternate year. In any case we were very anxious to get a first-class Civil Servant on the Board for the purpose of
156
organising the different works. No Civil Servant would undertake the duty under the conditions as they were left in the Development Act of last Session. His pension would not run during his ten years of service under the Board. It is very important that we should get a first-class man for the purpose of discharging the different functions. There, is a sum of £900,000 to be spent by a semi-judicial body, and I think it is in the interests of everybody that you should get the very best class of man available. You could not get a man of that class if his pension were suddenly to come to a stop the moment he is transferred from the public service on to the Commission. Therefore it is absolutely necessary in order to secure a man of that kind that you should have such a provision as is contemplated in the second Clause. With regard to Section 2, we found it necessary to make some provision for pensioning even the servants of the Development Commission, and putting them on the same footing as any other Civil Servants. There again we secure a better class of men as long as there is superannuation in prospect. Otherwise a man might find himself in the position at the end of ten years of quitting the service with no kind of prospect of getting security for his old age. With regard to the third Clause that is clearly an Amendment of a clerical error.
I hope that the House will enable me to get the Bill through before we adjourn on Thursday. Otherwise it means that we cannot begin operations for at least five or six weeks. I have been pressed, notably by hon. Members on the other side of the House, by means of questions and otherwise, to appoint the Commissioners at once, to start the work, and therefore to spend the money. I cannot do so until this Bill gets through, because I cannot complete the Commission. I am sure it is the desire of every hon. member, notably those interested in agriculture, to begin as soon as possible. Undoubtedly this is a project which has been too long delayed, as far as agriculture is concerned. There is no country in the world where as little is done by the State for agriculture as in this country. This sort of thing is done by every great agricultural community in the world. Even the United States of America, with its millions of acres of virgin soil, spends, I believe, ten times as much money upon this class of work as we do in this country. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, all spend three or four times as

157
much money as we do in this way. This is the first time an operation of this kind has been put on some sort of substantial and permanent basis. There is a real desire that we should begin the work, and I do trust that the House will assist the Government to put this Bill through before Thursday next, in order to enable us to begin operations.
Mr. ASHLEY: I do not rise in any way to obstruct or criticise the progress of this Bill, but I think I may offer one suggestion and one small criticism upon this Bill. The first suggestion which I venture to make is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a step in advance, in my humble opinion, in increasing the number of Commissioners from five to ten; but is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he will be able to put all the interests on the Board, and to represent every part of the country with ten Commissioners? Does he think ten will be sufficient, and would not twelve or fifteen be better? Seeing that these Commissioners have to deal with aiding and developing agriculture, afforestry, drainage of land, rural transport, construction and improvement of harbours, inland navigation, and the whole of the fishing question, it may be of question whether ten Commissioners will be sufficient for the varied and important interests to be considered. Why should one Commissioner retire every year? Surely our aim ought to be to get as much permanence as possible with these Commissioners.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They can be reelected.
Mr. ASHLEY: Our aim ought to be to put men in a position to accumulate experience, so that they might give the best possible advice in the expenditure of this money. I hope, therefore, that in Committee the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of allowing the provision to remain as in the Act of 1909, under which one Commissioner would retire every two years.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out the word "now" in order to add at the end of the Question the words "this day six months."
In moving the rejection of this Bill, I shall have to trouble the House with the history of the Act and the reasons which have led the right hon. Gentleman to bring in this amending Bill. The Act was passed last year against considerable
158
debate. In Grand Committee there was a good deal of closure, which probably accounts for the error which has now to be rectified by Clause 3. But there was considerable discussion in the Grand Committee and in this House, and the point as to the number of Commissioners was fully dealt with. There is nothing whatever to prevent the Bill being brought into operation as it is; and the right hon. Gentleman could do it to-morrow if he were really desirous of doing so. He tells us that the number of Commissioners must be doubled, otherwise the different interests could not be represented. It is because of that I submit the Bill ought not now to be read a second time. As the original Bill was brought in, no Commissioners were to be appointed. It was left to the Treasury to appoint an Advisory Committee. Lord Robert Cecil—who was then a member of this House, and I would like to emphasise the loss we have sustained by his absence — was strongly opposed to the Bill, on the ground that it might lead to political corruption, and he was supported to that effect by Mr. Harold Cox, than whom there was no better member on the other side of the House. When the Bill went into Committee Lord R. Cecil proposed Amendments providing that instead of an Advisory Committee appointed by the Treasury, there should be Commissioners appointed somewhat in the same manner as the Light Railway Commissioners. Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the Amendment of Lord Robert Cecil; but he suggested that the Government should bring in the Amendment in the shape of a new Clause. That new Clause, brought in on 30th August, 1909, was as follows:—
"For the purposes of this part of the Act there shall be established a Commission consisting of five Commissioners, to be styled the Development Commissioners, and to be appointed by the Treasury, of whom one.. shall be Chairman."
Then he went on to refer to details, but there was no word about any increase in the numbers. In the Committee the hon. and learned Member for the Chorley Division of Lancashire (Lord Balcarres) moved to insert the words,
"Or such larger number as the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, may think fit to appoint."

159
That Amendment was withdrawn. Then the Solicitor-General moved:—
"That the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, increase the number of Commissioners to such number as they think fit."
May I point out this, "That the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Commissioners,…" The arguments of the Solicitor-General and others were to the effect that should the Commissioners, when they were appointed, find the work was too great for them to carry out, they should be empowered to ask for an additional number. That Amendment was defeated, but in the Committee it was carried by 16 to 14. In the minority there were the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), Mr. Lief Jones, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Vivian), and the hon. Gentleman the Member for one of the division of Staffordshire, who is also a Labour Member. There were also two other Members of the Opposition. In the Committee the arguments used by the Solicitor-General are very excellent reading. Mr. Lief Jones said:—
"If they had a large Commission they might subdivide the work and portions of it might be done by certain sections of the Commissioners instead of by the Commission as a whole. The Commission should not have more work than they could properly carry out."
Lord R. Cecil said that he agreed with the last Member. He also
"thought that if they had a large tribunal they lessened the sense of responsibility. If they got a small tribunal, then such a tribunal realised much more the importance of the work."
The Solicitor-General said he agreed that "the smaller the body the better the work."
I do not know what has happened since last October that the Chancellor of Exchequer should throw over his Solicitor-General, and think now "that the larger the body the better the work."
Then there was my right hon. Friend, the Member for London University (Sir P. Magnus), who made a very excellent speech. The object of the Amendment of Lord R. Cecil was very clear upon this. These Commissioners—and I am glad to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated the words—would be in a judicial or quasi-judical position. The object of there being only five Commissioners, in Lord Robert Cecil's view, was that they were to be in a judicial, or semi-judicial,
160
position, and that therefore they would be free from political bias and pressure which might be put upon them by different interests and different industries, and that this scheme or that scheme should be proposed not because it was supposed to benefit any particular industry, but because it was in the interest of the whole country. That was the argument, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was to be no log-rolling under this Bill, and that no scheme was to be advocated simply because it benefited England or Ireland or Scotland. They were to be schemes for the benefit of the country as a whole, and we were to have an impartial body of men free from any influence whatever from outside. We had a special shorthand report taken of the proceedings, because under the rules that regulate Grand Committees no official shorthand report is taken. It was said that one of the things to be guarded against was the influence of people interested in particular industries. What we wanted to guard against were representations for agricultural or any other interests you may conceive, and that people should not be putting forward claims on behalf of particular industries which they were supposed to represent. That being so the Amendment was carried by a majority of two.
When the Bill came to this House my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir W. Anson) moved an Amendment to alter the methods of the appointment of the Commissioners, and to provide that their appointment should be under sign-manual instead of by Parliament. In making that motion my hon. Friend made a very excellent speech, and he emphasised the fact that the number of Commissioners should be small. The Solicitor-General said: "I am not myself enamoured of it at all "—that was the motion to increase the number—and he went on to say:—
"My own opinion is that a body of Commissioners, consisting of rive, which would have the right to appoint Advisory Committees, is a much better body than an indeterminate number."
Although the Government refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend to appoint the Commissioners under the sign-manual, they asked him to move an Amendment deleting the words put in in Committee, "that the Commission should have power to add to their number," and to insert instead words which would leave the number of the Commissioners at five. My hon. Friend moved that Amendment,

161
which was agreed to without a Division. If that is so—and I challenge anyone to controvert my statement—on what ground does the right hon. Gentleman come down here before the Commissioners have been appointed and stultify everything which was done before by asking the House to give him power to appoint ten Commissioners? If we pass this proposal, we shall be falling into the trap which, by Lord Robert Cecil's prescience, we were prevented from falling into last year.
These Commissioners will be in the position of partisans, each trying to get something for his own particular industry, with the result that no industry will get anything, because the amount will be so small. Not only this, but we shall be going back upon everything we did after weeks of labour in the last Parliament. The least the right hon. Gentleman could have done was to have given the Act a fair trial, and then in case he found the number too small he could have brought in another Bill. I do not propose to go into the question relating to the pensions. I understand that these pensions are to be taken out of the Development Fund. There is no new money, otherwise there would have to be a Bill founded upon a Resolution in Committee of the whole House. This proposal will, of course, reduce the Development Fund money, and what is going to happen is that the only people who will benefit will be the officials appointed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This is a very serious question. I have endeavoured to recall to the House what took place when the Act was passed last year. I hope I have shown that the intention of the Act, which was to create a judicial body, will be frustrated if these people are to be increased in number, the avowed object of the right hon. Gentleman being to increase them because he desires that certain people who are interested shall be able to get something out of it.
Viscount MORPETH: I beg to second the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very rapid survey of the agriculture of the world, and took a very large outlook for such a very small Bill. This measure is not concerned with the development of agriculture, but with the appointment of five extra officials. The development of agriculture on the lines of the United States and Belgium, and elsewhere, could be perfectly well done under the Bill as it passed the last Parliament. My hon. Friend has gone
162
through the history of what took place upstairs, and down here last Session, and I should like to remind the House that all through the proceedings on that Bill we were continually told that at any moment we might expect to receive the names of the Commissioners. Now we are told that that Act cannot be put into force until this House has consented to an increase in the number of Commissioners. This is an idea which has occurred since the passing of the Act, and it is entirely due to the pressure which has been put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer by various hon. Members, not only on his own side of the House, but also on this side. That to my mind is a convincing argument against the proposal of the Bill, because it is seen that under the proposal of this Bill sectional pressure and pressure of different interests is already so heavy on the Government that they are forced to make concessions to interests both sectional and geographical, in order to get what they call a fair representation on the Commission. Without going into the history of what took place, I would point out that in the last Parliament it was said that sub-committees, local committees, and officials might be appointed by the Commissioners for the express purpose of limiting and keeping down the number of Commissioners that are to be appointed. I would also like to point out that extra work will be thrown upon the Commissioners by an Amendment which was no part of the Government proposal, and which was accepted from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie), and by which the Commissioners themselves are allowed to initiate schemes, and not merely to adjudicate upon schemes sent up to them from Government Departments. This enormous pressure of work is created by the fact that we are setting up a body which is to pass in review the work of some of the great public departments, and which is to judge whether the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, or any other great department is carrying out schemes for the development of the country. If the Government had only been content to leave this work in the hands of the departments which already exists, it would not have been necessary to create this great body of Commissioners.
Many persons, including the President of the Divorce Court, the late Solicitor-General (Sir Samuel Evans), are of the opinion that by having a small Commission, not of experts and men representing

163
different interests—the agricultural associations, the Farmers' Union, or any other sectional organization—but by having five men of standing and of knowledge and of good administration, we could get a far better tribunal than we shall have in this body proposed by the Government at the present time. I quite agree with the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that the whole spirit of the Commission, as it was proposed by Lord Robert Cecil, and as it was accepted by the Government, who frankly, and I think very wisely saw the merits of the scheme has been departed from. You should have a small body of private competent men, not experts themselves, with regard to all the many objects that may be brought to their attention, but men exercising common-sense, and having a knowledge of administration and of affairs. That would have been a far better tribunal than this unwieldly body of amateurs who are not going to be paid, and who, so far as I can see, are only going to be appointed in order that a certain number of gentlemen should receive a quasi honour from the Government which will please them and be of no advantage to the bulk of the country, whether agricultural, commercial, or industrial.
Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not rise in order to prolong the Debate, but I do wish to put in a word begging the Government not to take these Bills which raise discussions of some importance at such a late hour of the night. After all, we have a certain amount of the Session before us still, and I think it would be possible to deal with some of these controversial measures during ordinary and decent hours. I wish also to say a few words on one particular point, and I will limit my remarks strictly, as the Noble Lord opposite has done, to the Question of the number of the Commissioners. As for the Bill itself, I have not too much love for it. It seems to me to partake too much of a Poor Law Relief Bill. I think it is necessary that someone representing industrial districts should have a word to say on it. This Development Fund Bill is not merely for agriculture. Every speaker seems to consider that these funds are going to be used simply and solely for the benefit of agriculture, which means increasing landlords' rents. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Is not that why you are endeavouring to do it? The Bill, as it was passed through the last House of Commons, provides for far more
164
than the subvention of agriculture. It also provides for the development of roads and inland waterways. I represent a district which depends very largely upon its inland waterways. The Potteries simply subsist on that canal system which connects them with the sea. I do think, if the number of Commissioners is going to be increased from five to ten, that we who are interested industrially in the Midlands have a right to ask that one of those Commissioners at least shall be interested not in the Potteries, but in inland water navigation. After all, money spent on inland navigation is every bit as much to the advantage of the whole community as money spent on finding new seeds or making motor roads. We who are interested in industries have just as much a claim to those funds as any landlord or agricultural society or any farmers' association. I trust, if the Commissioners are increased from five to ten, we shall have a fair representation of industries, and that we shall be able to claim our own share in the subjects dealt with.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I venture to hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not press this Bill to a Division this evening. It certainly does involve some very important considerations. It was most carefully discussed in Committee when this particular Clause as regards the number of Commissioners received a very large amount of attention. For my own part, if a Division takes place this evening, I certainly shall not vote against this Bill, because I do not want to do anything which will prevent it from coming into operation, but at the same time I do think it highly important that so crucial a question as the number of the Commissioners should be carefully considered, and I would venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if the Second Reading of this Bill be carried, he should be willing not to press the adoption of Clause I. in Committee. I certainly retain the opinion which I expressed in Committee that the whole work of this Development Bill would be very much better carried into effect with five Commissioners than it would with ten. Already an hon. Member from this side of the House has suggested that the number should be increased to fifteen. I do not see how, with the various interests which come under the purview of this Bill, it will be possible to limit the number to fifteen if you once attempt to alter the principle under which these Commissioners were to be appointed.

165
12.0 M.
I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those Members who served on the Committee will remember the great point which was made of the fact that these gentlemen were to occupy a judicial capacity, and that they were not to represent special interests. I cannot help thinking that they would discharge their duties in a far more satisfactory manner if they did not represent special interests. If they do, you will have one Commissioner only considering any question which arises with regard to that particular subject in which he happens to be interested, and therefore you will really have less persons considering important matters than you would if you had five Commissioners, and if those five persons were not appointed because of their interest in special matters, but on account of their general judicial powers and administrative ability. The whole of the five Commissioners should give their entire attention to any one question which may come up for consideration. I am deeply interested in the objects which are included in this Bill, and it is because I believe profoundly that the important work to which this measure undertakes to give effect will be far better carried out by five Commissioners than a larger number, that I earnestly appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press on this particular Amendment. The whole question seems to me to require very careful consideration, and I do not see that the operation of the Act will be necessarily postponed if the consideration of this Bill be adjourned. I was not able to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the Act could not come into operation unless this Bill is passed. It seems to me that there is only one clerical error which it is desirable to correct, and although I should not desire to offer any opposition to the other Clauses of the Bill, I cannot but think it would be better to adjourn the Debate at this present time, and therefore I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
Captain CRAIG: I desire to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. Those of us who were on the Committee last year discussed this matter very fully, and the right hon. Gentleman was holding before us the same threat that he could not bring the Act of last year into force until this Bill was passed through all its stages. I do not think that this House
166
should be threatened into passing legislation of any sort without taking into consideration the complete turn round of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers. The whole tenor of the Debate in the Committee last year was that these five men—these judicial Commissioners— should be without bias, and should judge the whole of the schemes brought before them on their merits, and not as advocates of any special scheme, and this is not the time to enter upon a discussion which really changes the whole aspect of the Act of 1909. This Bill before us, although it is only one Clause to which exception is taken, changes the whole tenor of the Act, and although it may be said by the Government that it is possible to discuss that Clause to-night, yet I do think that where it is a case in which the change has taken place in such a short time, and obviously as the result of pressure brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman that we should postpone the discussion of it. If we do postpone it I think the right hon. Gentleman should give us the names of the five Commissioners who have been appointed under the Act of 1909, and then we shall be able to consider if it is necessary for us to add other members. It will enable us to make up our minds, and if the five names commend themselves to the House then I hold that there will be no necessity to enlarge the number to ten or any other number. Once we branch away from five we may go on covering every industry in the country, the very thing the Act was intended to prevent, and considering that there is only £900,000 to be dispensed this year the right hon. Gentleman should admit the justice of our plea that the change in the whole aspect of the Act of 1909 deserves more consideration than being smuggled through at this hour.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I should quite concur in this Motion if the matter appeared to me quite so important as it does to my hon. Friend, or if it were the principal Act which this is intended to amend; and I think the Government owe an explanation of the reasons why what is evidently a very carefully adopted and deliberate decision of the House should now be set aside. I dislike the original Act as heartily as it is possible to do. It has always seemed to me to fulfil the idea of a Socialist measure more completely than any Act which has been before Parliament; but I really cannot take quite so gravely to heart the circumstance that

167
there should be ten Commissioners rather than five. The worst that can be said of it is that it has to some extent the appearance of a job. It is unusual, certainly, after Parliament has solemnly and deliberately fixed five for settled reasons that the Government within a few months should propose to have ten. The Government certainly owes the House an explanation of the change of intention, but I am not disposed to oppose the Bill any further unless the explanation is very unsatisfactory. Since the House has decided to try an experiment in Socialist legislation they must try it and we shall see what comes of it. I deprecate the interference of the State carried out on this scale, and I do not believe it very much matters whether you have a larger or a smaller number of Commissioners, and I do not believe any advantage is gained in standing between public opinion and the experiment they have resolved to try beyond uttering a word of caution against the folly of attempts of this kind.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I trust the hon. Gentleman will not persist in the motion. It is quite impossible to bring the Act into operation effectively without carrying through this amending Bill. I could not secure the services of such a class of Civil Servant as I should like to see at the head of a body of this kind without making provision in regard to pensions. I have gone thoroughly into the matter, and I have reasons which the House would realise when I come to give the names of the Commissioners, which I hope to be able to do in the next three or four days. As regards Clause 1, I agree with the Noble Lord that it is not a matter of principle. If five people are judicial why assume that ten cannot possibly be? They are not representatives in the sense that hon. Members represent constituencies. They only represent interests in the sense that they are acquainted with, say, agriculture, or particular phases of agriculture, or any other industry. If the hon. Gentleman had the responsibility of getting together a number of Commissioners like these I think he would come to exactly the same conclusion that it is almost impossible to do it with the limited number in the Development Act. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) talks as if it were a very considered judgment, but the Committee, which was not very full, were very much divided about it. When I tried to get together men for this
168
purpose I found it utterly impossible to do so as long as I was limited to five. You want different characters of men, and I found it quite impossible within the limit of five to get all the types required for this particular purpose. You may want a man who has got a certain knowledge of business. [Laughter.] What is there to be so amused about in that?
Captain CRAIG: Are they not all to have experience of business?
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well what is meant by that. The ordinary type of business man is not specially acquainted with, say, agriculture or canals. The kind of man who is called a purely business man might be one with a special knowledge of finance, for instance. If the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) had to get up a commission for this purpose, I think he would find it exceedingly difficult. It is quite essential that you should have representatives from Scotland and Ireland, as well as from other parts of the United Kingdom. All that was promised when the Act was passing through Committee. That is really the issue. You cannot possibly do what is required within the limits of the Development Act unless you increase the number of Commissioners as now proposed. Only one object would be served by the adjournment of the Debate, and that is delay. I am sure that would not be the object of the hon. Member (Sir P. Magnus). When the Act of last year was passing through Committee he professed to be friendly to it. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the hon. Member for East Down (Capt. Craig) were very hostile to the Act. They opposed it upstairs, and did their best to kill it.
Sir F. BANBURY: I went away.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At any rate, I think I am giving a perfectly fair account when I say that the hon. Baronet was frankly opposed to it root and branch. The Amendment now before the House would have the effect of putting off the operation of the Act for five weeks. I still appeal to the House to enable me to get this Bill, in order that operations may be started as soon as possible.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I am in very much the same position as my Noble Friend. I never liked the Development Act from the beginning. I have had some experience of the Board of Agriculture, and I believe every penny could be as well spent

169
through that Board as by the Commissioners. I have never been able to see the wonderful advantage we shall derive in agriculture or in any other industry through these Commissioners, but I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the objections we take to part of this Bill do not arise from any desire to delay the operation of the Act of last year. Therefore, I should certainly be no party to a Motion which was calculated to delay giving effect to an Act of Parliament already passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us now he must have the powers to provide these officials. It is a pity he did not think of that when he was passing the Act. My Noble Friend made one remark with which I did not agree. He said that no matter of principle is contained in our objection. For the first time, I think, since I sat in this House, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). He pointed out with very great force, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed it by the experience he retailed, what is the real objection. In my humble opinion it is a change in principle and not in detail. Parliament deliberately decided last Session that the Commissioners should be Judicial Commissioners, in other words should be competent men who would not be experts in any particular branch of farming or industry, but should be common sense, practical, capable men who would sit, not to give effect to their own ideas or fads, but to hear the recommendations made by others and decide between them, and then use the money to the best of their ability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he wants ten Commissioners. I can well picture to myself the experience he has been going through endeavouring to select five. Why, if he goes on the principle of five representative men I would undertake to say that there is no big agricultural county in England which could not bring witnesses to show that you could not get five men who would represent all the agricultural interests of that one county. What in common, for instance, has the agriculture of Lincolnshire with that of Somerset? The whole system in each is as different from that in the other as any two systems can possibly be. If the Chancellor is going to get representatives of different interests he will be no more satisfied with ten than with five.
Of course, this is the first real attempt that the Government has
170
made to deal, not with the difficulties of agriculture, but with the question of unemployment, because here is an effort by the Chancellor to find places for five unemployed people. So far as it goes it is desirable, but he will fail with the object he has professed. If he really wants this money well spent he ought to keep to five and not enlarge it to ten. If he goes on to ten he will very soon find it necessary to enlarge it to fifteen or twenty. Therefore my objection is one of principle. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when he said it was a scandal after we have been discussing a great measure, as in the Debate a short time ago, that this measure, which was so important and which was going to do so much for our nation should be brought on for discussion at 12 o'clock at night. We are face to face with a situation and, as practical men, we must deal with it. The Chancellor tells us that this is the only time the Government can find for the discussion of this measure, and he tells us that he must have it or he cannot put the particular Act into force. He is not prepared to accept a Motion for Adjournment in order that there might be some further consideration of what is a change in principle and not in detail.
This is a proposal to depart altogether from the principle of the measure of last year, which provided for the appointment of a judicial body and not a representative, or an intended representative, body. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us today that it is necessary to make this body representative, but he cannot have it both ways. If you try to make it representative of different industries, or branches of industries, you will at once put on this Board gentlemen who will have conflicting interests as to the way the money shall be spent, and they will act on their experience and knowledge and not on the evidence before them. When we discussed this question before I think I suggested that the Members from Ireland had a knowledge of the way in which to press their claims on this House greater probably than that of any other section of this assembly, and that in all probability when the different claims came to be considered those of Ireland would be pressed with greater vigour than those of any other part of the Kingdom. That shows how important it is that this body should not be representative, but purely judicial, and that it should not be a body whose members would attend to sup-

171
port their own particular schemes. Our objection is on principle and not on detail at all. I have no desire whatever to delay the progress of this measure in face of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that it is absolutely imperative that it should be passed. If my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London goes to a Division I shall certainly vote with him as a protest against the way in which the Government have treated this question, and against what I believe to be a dangerous change of principle in the measure. But that Motion disposed of, I should certainly not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, because I am bound to take the statement made on behalf of the Government, as I think we always are, that it is imperative this should be passed. I am not prepared to give any vote which, if it were successful, would have the effect of paralysing the measure passed last year.
Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: There is one matter which has not been alluded to to-night and on which I should like to have heard the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the original Act the House laid down very clearly, in the Clause with which we are dealing, the powers of the Commissioners. One of the powers was that they might frame schemes themselves, but that they could only go through by a majority of that body. Under Section 4 of Clause 3 it says that the Commission may act by three of their body, that is, of course, a majority of their number, so that a majority of the whole body had to be in agreement as to any scheme which they framed themselves. But the Government have left the quorum at three while they have increased the number of Commissioners to ten so that three of the Commissioners may put a scheme through, and themselves deal with the money, though they are really less than one-third of the whole Commission. That goes to the root of the whole principle established by this Clause, especially in connection with Subsection (4), providing that they can frame schemes for themselves, and more especially when we hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the principle of representation on the Commission is now to be geographical. We ought all to regard this as rather a serious change pf procedure in connection with this
172
measure, and I do hope that the Government will give some explanation of it, because it does seem rather a dangerous power to confer, and a considerable departure from the principle laid down last year.
Some words which the Chancellor of; the Exchequer used embolden me to ask whether, if this measure passes this stage to-night, he will promise to give us the names of the Commissioners before the Bill eventually leaves this House? We have been promised information a good many times as to the Commissioners, and we are now asked to increase the I number, but we are not told in the least what the Commissioners are going to represent, and we have very little in formation on the question. I think, therefore, that the House would be wise to keep control over the Bill until we actually know how far the Commissioners meet with the approval of the House generally. The names have often been given during the passage of a Bill through the House, and I think, in this case, that should be done, especially considering the very great departure in the number. I am most anxious for the Bill to come into operation, and shall do nothing to delay it in any way, but I most certainly ask that the names should be given, and some explanation of this alteration in the Bill.
Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It is unfortunate that this Bill, which commands general consent in its general principles, is delayed owing to the reticence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit, that the Government have changed their policy. They originally decided that the body should be a judicial body, and now they tell us it is to be a representative body. I believe the whole matter could be cleared up if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take us a little more into his confidence. He has told us that the body is to represent the various portions of the United Kingdom. I can only say there is a very suspicious aspect of a job in this matter. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether it is not his desire to include a representative of Wales, and if it is not for that reason that he has altered the policy of Government into having this a representative body instead of a judicial body. I must support the Motion for Adjournment which has been moved by my hon. Friend for the reason that the Chancellor of the

173
Exchequer is unwilling to give the names of the Commissioners, or to tell us for what reasons the policy of the Government has been altered.
Mr. LOUGH: An incident occurred the other day in another place with reference to this Bill which has made me think that the matter is of even greater importance than I previously realised. A proposal was made to the Government in the House of Lords that the money should be found out of some fund, if an attempt were made to grow beet sugar in this country, to allow an equivalent grant to the Customs Duty levied on sugar. The reply given on behalf of the Government was that while they could not agree not to levy an Excise Duty corresponding with the Customs Duty, being a Free Trade Government, yet there was the Development Fund, and a sum might be given, and these were the words of the Minister, out of the Development Grant equivalent to the Customs Duty. I must say that was a statement of policy which shocked me very much.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are really discussing the question of the increase in the number of Commissioners.
Mr. LOUGH: I am coming to that. I only mentioned that incident to show that the personnel of the Commissioners is a matter of vast importance. They may have to deal with very large questions. In my opinion no graver question could come before any body than that which was lightly touched upon in the incident to which I have referred. If such large questions are to be decided by these Commissioners, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider the appeal for a little more time for considering this important change of policy. I do not agree with the Noble Lord opposite that it is a trifle whether you have ten Commissioners or five. Surely the Noble Lord will agree that it is much harder to find ten righteous men than five, and the whole point in favour of the five was that they were to be gentlemen of high character and judicial position, on whose judgment we could rely. All that has been changed by the slight explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is to be a large body, partly representative, and yet it does not rest on the principle of election. I do not wish to obstruct the Bill in any way. I am in
174
favour of its principle if it is carried out in accordance with the principles of Free Trade and other great principles, but I think there are points which require further consideration. There is something mysterious about Clause 2. I am not enamoured of these Civil Service officials. There was some allusion to a returned Governor of a Colony.
Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion must be germane to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. LOUGH: I desire on the ground of the largeness of the question to suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give a little more time, so far from imperilling the Bill, it would hasten its progress. Another large question is the setting up of a department; that has been more distinctly adumbrated to-night than ever before. That is another reason why I think more time should be given for the consideration of the Bill.
Mr. PEEL: I spent many days an August and September last discussing the Act in Committee, and I have a very clear recollection of what went on there, which differs in many respects from the representations put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Second Beading is obtained to-night, shall we have a genuine opportunity of discussing the Bill in detail in Committee? We are so accustomed to the Closure this Session that it is almost impossible to get any opportunity, except at twenty-five minutes to one in the morning, to deal with these matters. I cannot myself see that there will be any opportunity to discuss this matter, at the proper hour at least, either on Tuesday or Wednesday, so that really I think our decision to-night to divide or not must depend very much upon the question as to whether or not there are facilities, that he is so very chary of in other matters, given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not wish to say anything in regard to the appointment in the Second Clause, except that as it is a matter of official appointment that we shall not have another case of the appointment of the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister.
But may I say a word or two on the very point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised in respect to the question as to whether these Commissioners were or were not to be representative. The Report of the Committee says: "That an Amendment was moved by the hon. Gen-

175
tleman the Member for Merthyr Tydvil to the effect that the Commissioners were to consist of persons representing the House of Commons, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the Board of Trade, the Board of Education, the Local Government Board, and the Office of Works."
The Question was actually moved before the Committee upstairs, and was discussed as to whether or not these Commissioners should or should not be representative, and the Amendment was by leave withdrawn. I remember very clearly myself putting a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asking: "Are you going to have representatives of England, Scotland, and Ireland—I do not think I mentioned Wales—who know these countries, so that the money may be fairly allocated between these countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an Amendment of the kind specified was unnecessary: it was not necessary to divide the money between these countries, because "I am going to appoint Commissioners whose functions will be to be purely judicial," and that that would keep the Commissioners outside the question as to whether or not the money should be spent in England, Ireland, Scotland or Wales. I think one of the reasons the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to increase the number of Commissioners is that he finds the question is much more difficult than he supposed; and the question of the allocation of money between these different countries must be done in some sort of representative way as he seems to suggest.
Another reason I think why the right hon. Gentleman has been led into these difficulties is the enormously wide nature of the purposes for which this number is to be distributed. I have here the principal Act. Looking at the chief purposes for which the money—not a very
large sum—is to be spent, we see it includes: Aid to develop agricultural rural industries, co-operation, the extension of the provision of small holdings, forestry, general improvement and rural transport, consideration of the improvement of harbours and island navigation, etc., and it ends:—
"And for any other purposes calculated to promote the economic development of the United Kingdom."
I really think when the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to select five persons, judicial or otherwise, who were capable of dealing with this enormous variety and range of subjects, that then he began to find that probably he wanted more than five persons, and was forced into the necessity of selecting ten. Then he began to see if he had ten, that they had, as it were, to put aside the judicial character that they were originally invested with, and adopt this representative character, which was so very much condemned in the Committee upstairs. An hon. Friend near me says if they were to be representative you would want a very large number, and the speech of an hon. Member opposite afforded a very good example of that sort of thing. He said there should be a special representative for Ashton-under-Lyme, but in the same way I should be inclined to say we should have a special representative for Somerset. That is really the reason why the Chancellor is led into bringing in a Bill to amend an Act before it has actually come into operation. He included too many things under his Act in Grand Committee, and now, after searching through the length and breadth of England, he cannot find five men of such wide and varied experience as to be able to deal with the great many matters which would be thrown at their heads.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 172.

Division No. 62.]

AYES.

[12.45 a.m.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brotherton, E. A.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Carille, Edward Hildred

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Castiereagh, viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Cator, John

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Balcarres, Lord

Cave, George

Fell, Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Chaloner, Col. R G. W

Fleming, Valentine

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Clive, Percy Archer

Forster, Henry William

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Compton, Lord Alwyne (Brentford)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Boyton, James

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Gilmour, Captain John

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Courthope, George Loyd

Goldsmith, Frank

Bridgeman, William Clive

Dalrymple, Viscount

Gordon, John

Greene, Walter Raymond

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Morpeth, Viscount

Stanier, Beville

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Starkey, John Ralph

Harris, F. L. (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

Newman, John R. P.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Hills, John Walter (Durham)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Thompson, Robert

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Horner, Andrew Long

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Valentia, Viscount

Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)

Peel, Hon. William R. W. (Taunton)

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Keswick, William

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Peto, Basil Edward

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

White, Maj. G. D. (Lane. Southport)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Lewisham, Viscount

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Llewelyn, Major Venables

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Mason, James F.

Royds, Edmund

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Philip Magnus and Captain Crals

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Rutherford, William Watson

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

NOES.

Abraham, William

Henry, Charles Solomon

O'Shee, James John

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Higham, John Sharp

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Holt, Richard Burning

Parker, James (Halifax)

Allen, Charles Peter

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pointer, Joseph

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Sir George H.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pringle, William M. R.

Bentham, George Jackson

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Johnson, William

Reddy, Michael

Black, Arthur W.

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydfil)

Rees, John David

Boland, John plus

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Richards, Thomas

Bowerman, Charles W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brace, William

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Keating, Matthew

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bryce, John Annan

Kelly, Edward

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kilbride, Denis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lambert, George

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cawley, H. T. (Lanes. Heywood)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Scanlan, Thomas

Chancellor, Henry George

Leach, Charles

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Levy, Sir Maurice

Seddon, James A.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Lewis, John Herbert

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Clancy, John Joseph

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Shackleton, David James

Clough, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shortt, Edward

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lundon, Thomas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Cullinan, John

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies, Ellis William (Elfion)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summers, James Woolley

Dawes, James Arthur

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sutherland, John E.

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sutton, John E.

Devlin, Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Doris. William

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines. Spalding)

Tennant, Harold John

Duffy, William J.

Mallet, Charles Edward

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Manfield, Harry

Toulmin, George

Ferguson, Ronald C. Munro

Masterman, C. F. G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Twist, Henry

France, Gerald Ashburner

Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

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

Verney, Frederick William

Gibbins, F. W.

Middlebrook, William

Wadsworth, John

Gibson, James Puckering

Millar, James Duncan

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Mond, Alfred Moritz

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Glanville, Harold James

Mooney, John J.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Grenfell, Cecil Alfred

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Watt, Henry A.

Gulland, John William

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Hackett, John

Muldoon, John

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

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Muspratt, Max

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Hancock, John George

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, Aneurin (Plymouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

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

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wing, Thomas

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Doherty, Philip

Young, William (Perth, East)

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Dowd, John

Hazleton, Richard

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Malley, William

of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Bill read a second time, and Committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Tuesday).—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]

Lord BALCARRES: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question before the Second Reading is taken. I presume he must have it to-day, but I would suggest that the Committee stage should be postponed, in order to enable certain amendments, which, as has been pointed out are necessary, to be put down. There is the question of the quorum. Again, the Second Clause requires some attention, for it is by no means clear. I have asked whether or not the paid Commissioners will remain Civil Servants. Two or three of my legal friends tell me that as the Bill now stands only two of the Commissioners can be paid. It is the idea to select one, and perhaps both, from the Civil Service, and they will, as the Bill stands, remain members of that Service. If so, that is in direct and absolute breach of the understanding, or rather the statement made, that these Commissioners would be absolutely independent of the Government. That is one of the conditions which was impressed upon us day after day in the Grand Committee upstairs. Yet now you are appointing a Government servant to be the head of the Commission! We want time in which to put down Amendments. Again, we really ought to be given the names of the Commissioners before the Bill passes out of the Committee stage. It frequently happens that the names have in such cases to be given in the Bill, and the, invariable practice is—it was carried out in the case of the Licensing Bill—to communicate the names to the Committee and to the House before the Committee stage finishes. We were promised them four or five months ago. We have made no progress since then, and I think the House is entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it into his confidence before the final stage is reached. Let him tell us the names of the gentlemen to be appointed, in view of the fact that the whole basis of the Bill has been changed, and instead of being judicial Members we are to have representatives not only of great interest, but also of different parts of the country.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be very glad to assent to the appeal of the Noble Lord if, on the other hand, he will assist me. I want the Bill passed into law before we adjourn for the Spring Recess, and in order that that may be accomplished, the House of Lords must receive it on Thursday. The Noble Lord is a real opponent of the Bill. If he can, however, on behalf of the Opposition, assure me
180
that the Committee stage and the Third Reading shall both be concluded on Wednesday, I shall be happy to postpone the Committee stage until Wednesday. I should then expect the Opposition to assist me in completing all the remaining stages of the Bill that night. There is only really one point at issue, and that has been debated for two hours. If I get the assurance I am asking for, I may be able to give the names of the Commissioners on Wednesday. The great thing is to ensure that the Bill shall go through before the Recess. If hon. Members intend to throw difficulties in the way, they can not expect me to announce the names of the Commissioners. I am quite willing even now to give them privately to the Leaders of the Opposition, but obviously they cannot be publicly announced until it is certain that the Bill is going through on Wednesday next.
Mr. WALTER LONG: The Bill is an important one, and involves a material change in principle to which we attach great importance. But it is no good dwelling on that. We have to face the facts of the ease. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put one point to the Opposition. He has stated that there is some technical difficulty in regard to the publication of the names, but he is quite willing to give them to certain gentlemen on this side of the House. I say, frankly, that I have always had an objection to the disclosure of names to a limited number of people, because it does not carry the information which is really most earnestly sought. I have no curiosity myself as to the appointment of the ten Commissioners. I have not the smallest doubt that the selection will be of the usual character. Gentlemen will be selected because they are supposed to have a knowledge which it ultimatly turns out they have not. They generally have some particular hobby, which they ride to death to the exclusion of other people's hobbies. I suggest that we have made our protest, and we have made our case perfectly clear.
1.0 A.M.
I do not think the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very generous one, that is, that we should take both the Committee State and the Third Reading on Wednesday. It is, I think, rather an indecent proceeding, having regard to the great importance which the Government attaches to the merits of the Bill. But it appears to be a case of Hobson's choice, and I should advise my hon. Friend to

181
close with the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that on Wednesday he will communicate to the House the names of the Commissioners, if we on our side are prepared to take the Bill through its remaining stages, so that it may be passed into law before the Spring Recess. I have no power to speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, because some of them hold very strong individual views on this matter, but I think the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that before the House separates for the Whitsuntide holidays we shall know who the Commissioners are to be is a fair one.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not want to interfere with the understanding suggested, but I think there is one difficulty. If the Bill is amended on Wednesday night, it would not be within the ordinary procedure of the House to take three stages of the Bill on the same night, namely, the Committee, the Report and Third Beading, stages. It is not desirable that we should come to an understanding to-night, for that may preclude the Government from accepting Amendments. I do not in the least understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot tell us the names of the Commissioners now. If he can tell us the names on Wednesday night, why cannot he tell us no we Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain that point. He said it was obvious. I do not know that it is. Is it because it is now one o'clock in the morning? If he told us the names now it would put an end to the whole difficulty. The only conceivable reason why he cannot tell us the names now is that they will move the House to such horror that Members will not be ready to go on with the Bill. There is one other thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not observed. The Bill cannot in any case be taken to-morrow, so that the right hon. Gentleman is really offering us nothing. I understand the Supreme Court of Judicature Bill is to be taken to-morrow.
Sir F. BANBURY: Oh, they can do anything.
Lord HUGH CECIL: Possibly. There is also a private Bill down for to-morrow, and in that case it will be impossible to take this Bill. Finally, I do not quite understand why it is so important that the Bill should be passed into law before the Spring recess.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In answer to the Noble Lord's last question, I certainly could not appoint the Commissioners unless the Bill became an Act of Parliament.
Lord HUGH CECIL: It is the names we want.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Commission could not be set up unless the Bill were converted into an Act of Parliament. That is the reason why we want it before Whitsuntide, otherwise there will be a delay of about five weeks. The agriculturists both inside and outside the House have been pressing for the appointment of the Commissioners, and a delay of five weeks they would regard as being very serious. There is a sum of £400,000, which is already down in the Estimates, and there is no provision for dealing with it. It is very desirable that the Commission should sit, and consider the various suggestions put before the Board of Agriculture. The sooner it is done the better from the point of view of all those interested in the matter. With regard to the question of taking the Bill to-morrow, I understand that this Bill comes first tomorrow.
Lord BALCARRES: There is a private Bill down for to-morrow.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: At any rate, as far as Government business is concerned, this Bill would have precedence over any other business. As to Amendments, I understand that the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) is quite right. If there is an Amendment made in Committee, undoubtedly the Bill could not be taken on Wednesday. We can set up the Committee to-morrow, and by to-morrow the Noble Lord and others might be in a better position to come to a definite understanding as to getting the Bill through without Amendment. If that is done, the Bill might not come on till Wednesday, and in that case it could be carried through in a single night. That could not be done if there are any Amendments made.
Lord BALCARRES: Does this Bill come before the Judicature Bill? I see there are ten pages and a half of amendments to that Bill.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes.
Mr. COURTHOPE: Surely the reason the right hon. Gentleman has given for withholding the names to-night would apply equally on Wednesday night. How

183
can the Bill become an Act of Parliament on Wednesday? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us the names now.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have told the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walter Long) that I shall be prepared to give the names on Wednesday. I am not in a position to give them now. There are two or three names I could not give now.
Mr. BELLOC: There is one small point I wish to emphasise. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the last speech but two which he delivered, mentioned that he would give to the Opposition certain names in private and as a matter of good faith. I would ask him what is the Opposition, and what does Parliament know of such an organisation? I protest, like any other private Member, against methods of that kind. I only rise to underline that little episode in the Debate. I think it was very significant.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With reference to the Judicature Bill my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury tells me that he does not propose to proceed with that Bill to-morrow, except with the consent of the Opposition. I shall, therefore, put down this Bill for to-morrow night.
And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Monday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after One a.m., Tuesday, 26th April.