Commons Sitting of 9 August 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Thorney Drainage Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
A Clause added, and Amendments made.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
East Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That Standing Order 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
Partick Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Saint Helens Corporation Bill,
Corporation of London (Bridges) Bill,
Margam Urban District Council Bill,
Halifax Corporation Bill,
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Chiswick Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
North-Eastern Railway Bill [Lords],
Westbury Estate Bill [Lords],
Barry Railway Bill [Lords],
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill [Lords],
Merthyr Tydfil Corporation Water Bill [Lords],
Swansea Gas Bill [Lords],
Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [Lords],
Midland Railway Bill [Lords],
Paddington Borough Council (Superannuation and Pensions) Bill [Lords],
Rhondda Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to remove doubts as to the nationality of Richard Maximilian, Baron Acton, and his issue."—[Lord Acton's Nationality Bill [Lords.]
Lord Acton's Nationality Bill [Lords],
Read the first time; to be read a second time.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Special Report brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed.

SALFORD HUNDRED COURT OF RECORD BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow, and to be printed.

UNIVERSITY OF WALES (No. 2) BILL.
Reported from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration Tomorrow, and to be printed.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

ALSACE-LORRAINE CONSTITUTION (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 9, 1911).
Copy presented of Translation of the Laws relating to the Grant of a Constitution to Alsace-Lorraine [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 8th August, 1911, providing for Grants-in-Aid of Educational Expenditure approved by the Scotch Education Department under Section (16) (1) (f) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN ACT, 1905.
Return ordered, "As to the proceedings of Distress Committees in England and Wales and of the Central (Un-employed) Body for London under The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 268, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Government Contracts (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he could now state what action he proposed taking to secure the enforcement of the Fair-Wages Clause at Dowlais, where the moulders make the moulds for the ingots from which the plates for battleships are rolled, and also the various parts of the machinery employed in the rolling process, and where the pattern-makers make the patterns for the moulders, and are thus in both cases directly employed in connection with the contracts now being executed by Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold on behalf of the Admiralty?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The question has been referred to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, but their Report has not yet been received. I have, therefore, nothing to add to my previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Report is likely to be received?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid I cannot. I hope it will be soon.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a tabulated list of the hours of labour worked, and the rates of wages paid, to the various sections of unskilled and semi-skilled labourers in the employment of shipbuilding and armaments firms with Government contracts now in hand, ranging from as low as 17s. per week for 53 hours; whether he will take steps to see that in future all firms in receipt of Government contracts shall be asked immediately to pay all unskilled labourers the minimum wage of 5¼d. per hour, now being paid to Government unskilled labourers at Pembroke Dock, Devonport, Portsmouth, and Woolwich; whether he will undertake to insert a special clause in all future contracts, fixing the Government's dockyard and arsenal minimum wage for unskilled labourers as the minimum fair-wages rate to be observed by such contractors, stipulating also that the hours of labour shall in no case exceed fifty-three hours per week, with the Government's rates of overtime pay for all hours worked in. excess of the normal working week?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, third and fourth parts of the question, the Admiralty embodies in its contracts the Resolution of this House of the 10th March, 1909, which stipulates that the contractor shall pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the trade in the district where the work is carried out. In administering the funds voted by Parliament for the Navy, it would not be proper for me to incur additional expense by insisting upon conditions of employment in contractors' yards beyond what has been sanctioned by this House.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Fair-Wages Clause is being systematically and continuously violated by Messrs. Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold whilst executing Colonial Office contracts at their Dowlais works; and what action he proposes taking to secure its enforcement?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): As the hon. Member is aware reference has been made in this matter to the Board of Trade and the Fair-Wages Committee. I am not yet aware of the nature of their replies, and so regret that I am not in a position to give the hon. Member any further information to-day.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what decision, if any, has been arrived at by the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee concerning the position of certain classes of skilled workmen at Dowlais relative to Government contracts?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am informed by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee that the matters referred to them by the India Office are under consideration and that he hopes they will be able to arrive at a decision within a few days.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the rates of pay to workmen engaged in connection with the Government contract for rails at Dowlais ironworks; and what action he proposes to take to secure the proper observance of the Fair-Wages Clause attached to this contract?
  Mr. EDGAR JONESalso asked what action the hon. Gentleman has taken, or is prepared to take, regarding the wages paid to moulders and others at the Dowlais works?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): With the assistance of the Board of Trade and the Fair-Wages Committee I am obtaining all available information as to the rates of wages prevailing in similar works in the district. I hope to be in a position to answer hon. Members within a few days.

  Torpedo-boat Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state for how many torpedo-boat destroyers provision had been made in the British and German programmes from 1901–2 to 1910–11 respectively, and how many of these had designed speeds of thirty knots or more and under thirty knots; whether British destroyers were equal to the German in fuel capacity; and whether he would state what compensating advantages had been secured in return for the surrender of speed?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the British Navy, provision has been made in this period for 132 destroyers, of which 18 have a designed speed of 30 knots or more. This number does not include 36 vessels originally classed as destroyers, but now classed as torpedo boats, nor does it include three vessels built for service in New. Zealand. In the German shipbuilding programmes for the years 1901–2 to 1911–12 inclusive, provision has been made for 90 destroyers. We have no official information as to the designed speeds and fuel capacity of these vessels, and therefore no comparison such as is asked for in the second and third parts of the question can be made.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to tell us that the Admiralty do not know the speed of the German destroyers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can add nothing to what I have stated.

  H.M.S. "Indefatigable."
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether the cruiser "Indefatigable" was, after being commissioned, prevented from joining the First Cruiser Squadron for some time owing to defects in. her steam pipes; whether the ship recently had to be docked at Devonport owing to defects in

  1133
  her plating, both internal and external; what was the total number of days that were spent by this ship in dockyard hands or under trial since she was commissioned; and what was the cost of such alterations and repairs as had been carried out in her?
  Mr. McKENNA: The "Indefatigable" was commissioned before she had undergone the final machinery acceptance trials. Some alterations were considered desirable to the steam pipes before the final trials, and in consequence the vessel was longer in commission before joining the fleet than is usually the case. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. The defects were of a very slight character. Fifty-nine days, up to and including the 31st July, were spent by the "Indefatigable" in dockyard hands or under trial after commission. The cost of completing the ship and all subsequent work carried out was £3,155.

  Ships in Commission (Repairs),
  Mr. FRED HALLasked whether a warship when undergoing repairs could be considered in commission; and, if so, whether when undergoing such repairs it was necessary or usual to keep the whole of the crew on board, or whether they could be employed in other ways, e.g., in torpedo practice or other training, or in taking their annual leave?
  Mr. McKENNA: A ship remains in commission during ordinary repairs. It is the practice to give leave by watches to the crews of ships during their annual refit at a home port. The work and training of the men may be interfered with to some extent, but is not discontinued, and the crew take part in the refit. It is not considered desirable to remove the crew except during a large refit.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to convey that a ship would not be in commission if she received damages which necessitated her going to dry dock for repairs? I do not mean ordinary overhauling, but in consequence of an accident?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would depend on the length of time she had to be dry-docked whether the men were kept on board or not.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me what he would con-
  1134
  sider a reasonable time for the crew to remain on board during repairs necessitated by an accident?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be impossible to say. I suppose each case would have to be judged on its circumstances.

  Hon. Galbraith Cole (Nakuru Trial).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any report as to the trial at the Nakuru High Court of the Honourable Galbraith Cole for shooting and killing a Native suspected of sheep stealing?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir, and I am at present in communication with the Governor by telegraph on the subject.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the official report be published?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I think it hardly worth while to publish it as a Parliamentary Paper at present. I will consult with the hon. Gentleman later. Probably he will see that the Press reports which have reached this country are sufficient for all ordinary purposes.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of issuing Papers before the House reassembles in the autumn if this question is concluded before that time?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I should certainly issue any Papers that I consider necessary on the matter. I do not think the hon. Member will be dissatisfied with my action.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to the fact that, in order to pay the increments and arrears of salary to all the national school teachers in Ireland who have obtained promotion to the first grade down to the 31st March, 1911, an additional sum of only £763 would have to be provided, and that the unexpended balance of the fund for public education in Ireland returned by the National Commissioners to the Treasury in the last financial year was about £25,000; and if, in view of these circumstances and the fact that the Irish Education Estimates for the current year show a reduction of £3,533, chiefly under the head of teachers' salaries, he will comply with the repeated requests of the National Commissioners and permit

  1135
  them to pay all the teachers on promotion the salaries to which they are entitled under Rule 105a of the Commissioners?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on this subject.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: In view of the small sum required, does the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while, for the sake of that small sum, to perpetuate a grievance that is so keenly felt by those concerned?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, I am not sure that I can add anything to the answer that I have given. I should not like to give a further answer before I have talked the matter over with my right hon. Friend.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman consent to receive a deputation from the teachers, at a suitable time, in order that they may put their case before him?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am hoping to communicate with the teachers on the subject of superannuation, which is a very much more important question than this. But if incidentally this matter is referred to I shall be very happy to consider what is said.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked how many teachers have been promoted into both sections of the first division without being paid the salary attaching to the division to which they have been promoted; what sum would be required to pay these men the salaries to which on promotion they are entitled; whether the Treasury insist on limiting the number who will be paid the salaries to which promotion entitles them against the advice of the National Board; and, if so, what steps is it proposed to take to alter this rule?
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEalso asked the Chief Secretary if he can now state the result of his further consideration of the case of the national school teachers who have fulfilled the specified conditions and obtained promotion to first grade without receiving the increments of salary to which they are entitled; if he is aware that the teachers interpret Rule 102c as meaning that the National Commissioners have it in their power to promote teachers to the first grade when they have fulfilled the specified conditions; and if there is
  1136
  any rule of the Commissioners which states that some teachers must wait for an increase of salary when promoted, and that satisfactory service during the period of waiting is not to count in awarding the next increment?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The hon. Member for West Kerry will find the information asked for in the first two paragraphs of his question in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Cork on 16th May last. I am in communication with the Treasury on this subject, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to my previous answers. I am aware of the interpretation put by the teachers on Rule 102c; but, while there is something to be said for a revision of the present limits, it is obvious that the rules do not contemplate an indefinite increase of the numbers in the several grades.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is there any rule of the Commissioners which state that the teachers must wait for their increments?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. On the other hand it is a pity that they should have been given the proposed increment when there was no vacancy on the list.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Irish national teachers who are affected by the restriction as to standard numbers are on the first grade pension list and are paying first grade pension premiums; and if he will state the amount by which the pension fund was reduced in consequence of the payment of first grade salaries to the teachers promoted in the years 1909 and 1910, and the amount by which the pension fund would be reduced if increments of salary and arrears were paid to teachers who have obtained promotion to first grade but from whom the increments of salary have been withheld?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): It has been ascertained after inquiry at the National Education Office that all except thirteen of the teachers referred to are paying first grade premiums. As regards the latter part of the question, it is impossible to state the amount of the reduction in the fund, inasmuch as the adverse effect of promotions upon the fund does not begin to be felt until the retirement of the promoted teachers.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE FACTORY EMPLOYé.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether an employé at a Government ordnance factory who, by way of sick pay, medical attendance, and gratuity on discharge, draws benefit approximately equal to those proposed under the National Insurance Bill, but whose wages have been reduced by a certain sum weekly as a set-off for grant of such benefit, will or will not, either at the option of the War Office or himself, be held to fall within exception (b) of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the circumstances described in the question, it would appear that the employé would be within the exception, but, of course, the decision in such a case will rest with the Insurance Commissioners
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does that apply to where there is any invalidity recompense?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that straight off, and without a little more consideration.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Have any special regulations been made for the guidance of these men. It was so promised by the First Lord of the Admiralty?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be a great mistake to issue regulations in anticipation of the decisions of this House.

    MINIMUM BENEFITS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the term minimum benefits employed in connection with the benefits set out under Clause 8 of the National Insurance Bill is a misnomer; whether these so-called minimum benfits are reducible under the operation of Clause 31, and will in certain eventualities not be paid; and whether the term average benefits would describe them more accurately?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Having regard to the amount of margin allowed by the actuaries, I hope that the occurrence of a deficiency will be quite exceptional. Moreover, a society which through gross mismanagement or for any other reason has incurred a deficiency, has the option of meeting it by a levy instead of by a reduction of benefits. The term average benefits would be very misleading, since there is every reason to suppose that the aver-
    1138
    age benefits will substantially exceed those which have been termed the minimum.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the case that in an appreciable number of cases a good deal less than the minimum benefits will be paid?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not think so. On the contrary, I should put it the other way about: that in the vast majority of cases considerably more than the minimum benefits will be paid. I think it is perfectly safe to say that after consultation with the actuaries.

    ARMY OFFICERS.
    Major STANLEYasked whether officers in the Army who have no private means and whose pay is less than £160 per annum will be compulsorily insured under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Seeing that these officers at out-stations are already entitled to ½d. per diem for medical attendance, will the right hon. Gentleman not allow them to have full benefit for supply of medicine at ½d. per week, thus making up the sum of 4d. as required by the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a question that I would rather consider when we come to the Clause dealing with the Army.
    Major STANLEY: Will the officers be allowed to come in voluntarily?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without notice. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give notice I will certainly consider it.

    COMMISSION WORKERS.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person employed by and working solely on behalf of one employer on commission only is intended to be within exception (d) in Part II. of the First Schedule of the National Insurance Bill; and whether a person employed by one company only and receiving a weekly salary in addition to a commission is excluded from the provisions of the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Exception (d) in Part II. of the First Schedule only refers to an agent not ordinarily employed by one

    1139
    employer only. A person employed by one company only would, therefore, not be excluded by reason of this exception from the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, can he state specifically whether the eighty odd thousand collecting agents for industrial societies, whose income varies from £40 to £100, will be entitled to enjoy the benefits of the Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, certainly.

  Payment of Members.
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give the exact cost of the proposed payment of salaries to Members after making the deductions for those who are debarred from salaries under the Resolution?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member will find this information in the estimate which has been circulated.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this sum would be better spent in giving extra benefits to women under the Insurance Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to be able to do both.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can say what effect the granting of old age pensions has had on the poor rate of the United Kingdom?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I must limit my answer to an estimate for England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland are within the province of the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Only a rough estimate can be made. As shown in the statement with regard to persons in receipt of Poor Law relief on 31st December, 1910, which was presented to Parliament in April last, the decrease in pauperism estimated to have been the immediate effect of the removal of the pauper disqualification for old age pensions at the beginning of the present year represented a charge of about £22,000 a week on the rates. If account be taken of those persons who, though not in receipt of relief in December last, had, previous to
  1140
  1st January, 1911, been disqualified by the temporary receipt of relief since 1st January, 1909, the saving may perhaps be treated in round figures at about £1,200,000 a year.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it true that this has had a less proportionate effect in the county of London than any other part of the country?
  Mr. BURNS: I think it rather early to say that. I think it is only right that the various Departments who are dealing both with the Poor Law and pensions should prepare an accurate statement as soon as possible giving the total decrease of the cost to the rates, and questions like that involved in the question of the hon. Member.
  Mr. H. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman have that prepared?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost to the State of providing pensions for those who have hitherto cost the rates £1,200,000 a year?
  Mr. BURNS: There is not much difference between what it cost the rates and what it costs the State, because over 90 per cent. of the total receive pensions of 5s. per week, and in many cases the cost of out-relief was 4s. or 4s. 6d. a week.

  Chinese Pork.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received the report from his representatives, in China on the conditions under which the Chinese pork is produced and packed before shipment to this country?
  Mr. BURNS: Dr. Farrar has recently returned from China, and his report is in preparation.
  Mr. FELL: Will it be printed?
  Mr. BURNS: Oh, yes.

  South-Western District Post Office (Revision of Staff).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a considerable increase of staff has been asked for by the authorities at the Southwestern District Office to the extent of fifty-two postmen and several sorters; and, seeing that during the week ended 22nd July 36,371 letters were delayed at

  1141
  that office and 65,050 were despatched un-examined owing to insufficiency of staff to deal with this correspondence, although on his own showing the pressure had abated, will he state what steps he now proposes to take?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A revision of the staff of the South-Western District Office is under consideration, and steps will be taken as early as possible to adjust the force to meet the requirements of the work. According to the records kept at the South-Western District Office the correspondence excluded from the proper despatches or despatched unexamined was considerably less than that stated in the hon. Member's question, and, moreover, the correspondence included a large number of circulars. Very few of the letters would actually sustain delay in delivery. Although the abnormal pressure of work at the South-Western District Office had somewhat abated by the middle of July, there was still pressure during the week ended the 22nd July.

  Postal Facilities (Bruree, County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the post is despatched from Bruree, in the county of Limerick, now at twelve o'clock noon, whereas heretofore it was despatched about 3.15 p.m.; and whether, having regard to the fact that the people of this village and district have no time on-receiving a letter on Sunday to reply to it on the same day, and further, having regard to the fact that the mail train does not depart from Kilmallock, where the Bruree post is sent, until a late hour in the evening, he will take steps to see that the 3.15 p.m. despatch be continued in order to suit the convenience of the public in the district?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The alteration was made to admit of the postman returning home earlier on Sundays in accordance with the usual practice. I understand that the letters reach Bruree on Sundays at about 8 a.m., and the residents therefore have a reasonable interval in which to reply to any urgent communications. I regret that in the circumstances I cannot agree to revert to the old arrangement.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not a fact that for the past thirty years or more the mails were not despatched on Sundays until 3.15, and having regard to the fact
  1142
  that the late mails do not leave Kilmallock, the head office, until about 10.30, will the old arrangements be gone back to?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is precisely the question on the Paper and exactly the question I answered.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries? The mails at Bruree, as I am informed, do not arrive now until 11.30, whereas formerly they arrived at 8 o'clock.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have made inquiry, and my information is that the mails reach there on Sundays about 8 a.m.

  Pruning Trees in the Mall.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the First Commissioner of Works has been called to the correspondence which has taken place as to the pruning of the trees in the Mall; and if he will be prepared to call for and publish a Report by some competent authority on. the subject?
  TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. An investigation has recently been concluded by Professor Balfour, F.R.S., Regius Keeper of the Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, and Professor of Botany in the University of Edinburgh. He has prepared a report upon the subject, which is being presented as a Parliamentary Paper.

  Rainfall in India.
  Mr. BARTONasked the Under-Secretary whether, in the interest of trade, he will arrange for daily publication of the official report of rainfall in India during the progress of the monsoon?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The present arrangement is that the Government of India telegraph every week a summary of the crop and weather reports of the provinces, and these, under orders recently given by the Secretary of State, will be communicated to the Press as received. There would be some difficulty in sending daily telegrams, and the Secretary of State does not consider it necessary to alter the present practice. In case of any important change in the monsoon the Government of India would send an interim telegram, which also would be communicated to the Press.

  Teaching of Irish ill Training Colleges.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether, seeing that Irish is taught in about half the national schools of Ireland, steps will be taken at once to compel the training colleges to devote such time to the teaching of the language as its importance demands; and whether, if only 5 per cent. of the teachers who finish their course of training are qualified to teach the language, the Board are satisfied that they are endeavouring to meet the demand that exists for teachers having a knowledge of Irish; and (2), what is the cause of the delay in putting into force the rule made some years ago by the National Education Board stating they would require candidates for the training colleges in the year 1911 to pass in two languages; whether this delay is due to the opposition of those members of the Board who are afraid that Irish would thus be scientifically and thoroughly taught before and during their course of training to the future teachers of the country?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education cannot insist on the teaching of a language, in addition to English, in the training colleges so long as candidates for training are not required to qualify in a second language at the entrance examination. The Commissioners would like to make a second language compulsory, but cannot do so until they are in a position to afford facilities to candidates for acquiring a second language by paying extra fees for instruction in Latin, French, or German in national schools. The additional expense which this would involve has so far been deemed an insuperable difficulty. Irish is, therefore, for the present an optional subject at this examination, and also in the programme for training colleges. The Commissioners are, however, endeavouring to meet the demand for teachers having a knowledge of Irish by granting aid to special colleges for the instruction of teachers in that language.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications for reinstatement have been made to the Estates Commissioners by evicted tenants on the estate of Lord Kenmare in Kerry; how many of these have been reinstated; what is the cause of the delay in dealing
  1144
  with the remainder; and whether it was one of the first conditions in the agreement come to between the tenants' representatives and the landlord that all bonâ fide evicted tenants should be immediately reinstated?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received and inquired into sixty-four applications from persons stating they are evicted tenants or representatives of evicted tenants on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare, eight tenants have been reinstated, in thirty-nine cases the Commissioners have decided to take no action, and six will be further considered when the estate is being dealt with. In the remaining eleven cases the Commissioners have instituted proceedings under the Evicted Tenants Act for the acquisition of the former holdings of the applicants. The owner has signified his willingness to accept the Commissioners' estimated price for ten of these holdings. The Commissioners hope shortly to acquire these holdings and to issue their offer for the remaining one. The Commissioners have been informed that in the preliminary agreement between the vendor and the tenants the former agreed to reinstate all bonâ fide evicted tenants.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the Congested Districts Board have opened negotiations for the purchase of the estate of Mr. Woulfe Flanagan, which is situate at Ross, Killaraght, county Sligo, in the union of Boyle?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The estate referred to has not yet been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board. They are still in correspondence with the agent.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Will steps be taken to have that estate purchased, seeing it contains a very large amount of grazing farms and that the cottiers' valuation does not exceed 30s.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe it is desirable that this estate should be purchased, and the Congested Districts Board are endeavouring to do so.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether the Hon. Mrs. Dean Morgan and Sir Henry Grattan Bellew have consented to sell the evicted farm at Walshestown, barony of Forth, to Matthew Walsh, the former tenant; and if he can say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the papers in this case have been referred to an inspector for inquiry. His report has not yet been received.

  Army Officers (Shortage).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the present shortage of officers in the Regulars, Special Reserve, and Territorial Forces respectively?
  The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The shortages on the Establishments are as follows:—

  Regular Army

  …

  …

  311

  Special Reserve

  …

  …

  1,242

  Territorial Force

  …

  …

  1,654

  For the Regular Army there are 273 candidates for first appointment qualified for commissions who will shortly be gazetted.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that makes a substantial increase in the shortage that was reported six months ago?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot carry in my mind the exact date or the exact amount of the shortage but the hon. Member will see from the answer.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Has the time not come for giving greater opportunities for promotions from the ranks?
  Colonel SEELY: It might be desirable that promotions from the ranks should be increased in every way possible. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

  Glasgow Police (Pay).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Lord Advocate if the question of increase of pay to the police force of Glasgow, which has been agreed to by the Glasgow Town Council, has yet received the consideration of the Scotch Office; and, if so, when a reply will be forwarded to those immediately concerned?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The question referred to by the hon. Member is at present under consideration by the Scottish Office, and the Secretary for Scotland hopes shortly to be able to intimate a decision.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Seeing that the Scottish Office seems to be
  1146
  so congested already does the right hon. Gentleman not think it undesirable to still further add to their labours by giving: them the work of the Board of Agriculture?
  Mr. URE: Not at all.

  Electricity in Mines (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. SUTTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to page 6 of the Report of the Departmental Committee upon the use of Electricity in Mines, where it is stated that almost every electrical accident is preventable, and, as long as the accident list contains a proportion of preventible accidents, there is room for improvement; whether, on account of the badly-constructed or badly-maintained apparatus in our mines, he will consider the advisability of appointing an adequate number of competent electrical inspectors so as to examine electrical apparatus in mines and to ensure that such apparatus is of proper type, and also maintained in such a condition as to preserve the safety of the workers in the mines of this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am aware of the statement by the Home Office Committee referred to in the question. The responsibility for the provision of electrical apparatus of proper type and its maintenance in a safe condition rests. primarily with the management of the mine, and the new rules which the Committee have recommended and which I am taking steps to bring into force propose further and more stringent requirements to ensure safety of construction and maintenance in the case of the electrical plant used in mines. It will be the duty of the inspectors to see that these requirements are carried out, and adequate provision has already been made for the purpose. An electrical inspector of mines was appointed in 1908, whose whole time is given to this work. Many of the other inspectors have the necessary electrical knowledge, and the possession of such knowledge has for some years been a condition of the appointment of all new-inspectors; and, as I have already informed the House, a large increase of the inspectorate has recently been sanctioned.

CREATION OF PEERS.

  MINISTERIAL CORRECTION.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, whether the Report contained in the Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 29, p. 807, of the statement made to His Majesty on the 15th November, 1910, by His Majesty's Ministers is correct; and whether the object of the creation of Peers therein referred to was correctly stated in that Report to be to give effect to "the desire of the Government?"
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The words, "the desire of the Government," which appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT are incorrect. The correct version is "the decision of the country," as given in the report in "The Times," and the necessary correction is being made in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS (AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED RESOLUTION).
Viscount WOLMER: I beg to ask a question, of which I have given private notice, whether it would be in order to move more than one of the Amendments on the Paper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Motion on the subject of Payment of Members?
Mr. SPEAKER: There are five Amendments on the Paper for to-morrow, all of which propose to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the question, and to insert other words. Only one of those Amendments can be moved. There is another Amendment—the last one—which proposes to add words at the conclusion of the Resolution, and that could be moved.
Viscount WOLMER: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to propose a grave constitutional change in such a manner as to render ample discussion absolutely impossible?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to say whether there will be ample discussion or not. The Resolution will be open for discussion by. the Noble Lord and other hon. Members, and at the same time the alternative will be offered to him to take one of the Amendments.
Mr. CLYNES: Is it not a fact that this subject has been repeatedly discussed in; this House for many years?
Mr. WALTER M'LAREN: It might be for the convenience of the House if the Amendments were called upon in the order in which they appear upon the Paper, my Amendment being the first one.
Mr. SPEAKER: I can only answer that question in the historic words of the Prime Minister.
Mr. LEE: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of the House—or let us have them in some other way before the debate to-morrow or Monday—the Treasury Regulations which will govern the Payment of Members. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that there are no particulars in this Resolution, and it will be almost impossible to carry on discussion without having further details.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think it will be possible to do it in time for tomorrow. I think it has to be done after consultation with Mr. Speaker and the officials of the House. I am afraid it will be quite impossible.
Mr. LEE: Are we to understand that this matter has not been considered and settled before the House is to be asked to pass the Resolution. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to lay these Regulations on the Table, will he undertake to explain fully to the House in his statement to-morrow what is proposed to be done in this matter?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I intend to do that in my opening statement, and if there are any other questions, I shall be pleased to answer them in the course of the discussion.
Mr. J. WARD: One Amendment deals with railway travelling, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us a report to-morrow as to the number of Members of the Opposition who already have free passes as directors of the railways?
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is it intended to terminate the Debate on the Payment of Members to-morrow?

BILL PRESENTED.
  LAW OF LIBEL BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Libel," presented by Sir GEORGE TOULMIN; supported by Mr. Lawson, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and Mr. Winfrey; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps it will be convenient for me to now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a general statement as to the course of business?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My reply will cover the question of the right hon. Gentleman and also the question put by the hon. Member for Mile End. After consultation with the different parties in the House, it has been thought more convenient to finish the discussion of the Resolution as to payment of Members to-morrow, Thursday, night. Another opportunity will arise for the discussion of the subject on Monday, when in Committee of Supply a Supplementary Estimate for payment of Members will be considered. In order to effect this and to comply with the Standing Orders, a special Resolution will be necessary. This will be put on the Paper to-night and taken first thing to-morrow. I am encouraged to think that it will be passed without any discussion. On Friday we shall proceed with the Indian High Courts Bill, the Government of India Bill, the Labourers (Ireland) Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions) Bill, and the Telephone Transfer Bill. On Monday, as I have already stated, we shall discuss the Supplementary Estimate on Payment of Members. This is the last day but one in Supply, and the outstanding Votes will be taken at 10 o'clock. Tuesday will be the last day of Supply, and the Reports of the Votes will be taken at 10 o'clock. The Prime Minister will make a further statement in the beginning of the week as to the concluding business of this part of the Session, and as to the date of reassembling for the Winter Session.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the Tight hon. Gentleman able to say whether he proposes to proceed further with the Finance Bill during this part of the Session?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather leave that question for the Prime Minister when he returns on Monday.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: In view of the complexity of the questions involved in the Telephone Transfer Bill, and the strong feeling there is on the subject, does the right hon. Gentleman really think it necessary to take it on Friday?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that really there is very much complexity about it. There is only one outstanding
1150
point. I understand that it is in the interests of the telephone service that this Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment, and I think that will be for the general convenience of the business community. This arrangement was made after consultation in the usual way with the Noble Lord opposite.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it certain to be reached?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the first Order will take very long, and there is no reason why the hon. Member should not state his views fully.
Mr. BUTCHER: Will the Report stage of the Naval Prize Bill be taken next week or during the Autumn Session?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member had better put that question to the Prime Minister.

TRANSPORT WORKERS' STRIKE.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the alarming proportions the strike of dockers and transport workers has assumed this morning, he is in a position to give any information to the House and to hold out any hope of an early settlement; if not, when will he be able to make a statement?
Mr. BUXTON: At the present moment I cannot say more than that the Board of Trade are using their utmost endeavours to promote a satisfactory settlement of this dispute, of the gravity of which they are fully aware. Conferences of employers and workmen representing the coal trade and the lighter men of the Port of London respectively are meeting again to-day at the Board of Trade at my invitation. If my hon. Friend will repeat his question at an early date, I may be in a position to give him a fuller reply. Meanwhile, I earnestly trust that nothing will be said or done on either side to widen the area of the dispute, or to render its settlement more difficult.
Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these men have ever been able to get any improvement in their conditions of labour or any advance of wages without a strike?

FINANCE BILL.
Order for the Second Beading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Bill does not open much novel matter, and my criticisms will be directed more to what it has not done than to what it has done. The first remarkable fact about it is that the Government should not have thought it worth while to ask the House of Commons to read their Finance Bill a second time until nearly the middle of August, and on the verge of an Adjournment. I venture to say the utter disregard which the Government have shown of all precedent in this respect proves, if any further proof were needed, how absolutely in recent times they have made finances subservient to party ends, and have neglected the old and better traditions of the House. I will only say further on that subject that I desire to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the strongest terms the feelings of my friends on this side, that it is impossible that the Government, having delayed the Second Heading so long, and put it off to this day, should ask us to hurry through the Committee stage, where several important questions may and must arise in the very short time which remains un allotted before the close of this portion of the Session The Bill itself does not contain much, but in the course of the few observations I wish to make to the House I shall, I think, show the Chancellor of the Exchequer there are questions not included in his Bill which will form the proper subject of Amendments to it, and which we think urgently require attention and alteration of the law. The Committee stage would be the proper opportunity for us to make those Amendments. I hope, therefore, as he has shown he can govern as well without the Budget as with it, as he has shown that the whole cry against the House of Lords for postponing the passage of the Budget was the hollowest of party cries, and merely a weapon in a political game, as he has shown it is a matter of perfect indifference whether the taxes are collected under the Budget or under the Resolutions, he will at least give us proper time on a proper occasion to discuss the final stages of this Bill.
The Second Reading of the Finance Bill does give us an opportunity to consider for a moment our general financial posi-
1152
tion, the state of our expenditure, the state of our revenue, and the state of our national credit. I do not think anyone can view the condition of those various factors of national well-being without feelings of some gravity. When the Government first came into office, they had by the mouths of their leaders held out to the country expectations of a reduction of expenditure and of great and widespread reductions of taxation. Not only are we keeping nearly every tax at a high figure, not only is the Income Tax now permanently or semipermanently placed at a figure which a short time ago would have shocked the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman from whichever party they had been chosen, not only are we raising a revenue more than double that at which Mr. Gladstone even in my memory stood aghast, but every penny of the revenue that we are raising is pledged for our immediate necessities and every penny of expansion that in sanguine moments the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipates—with greater or less accracy I do not anticipate to say—he may get in the future from these same taxes or from additional prosperity in the country is also pledged to meet the liabilities which we are now creating, and nothing is left over out of the taxation which we are now levying—vast as that is and heavy as the increases are which have been made to it by the present Government—for unforeseen contingencies, whilst the resources upon which the nation would be able to draw in cases of international complications are, of course, steadily reduced by the policy which he has followed. The right hon. Gentleman, before he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, held wiser views upon this subject than now. As a general rule, the progress of Gentlemen who have had the honour to reach that post is in the opposite direction. They make very extravagant utterances or very extravagant proposals when they sit in all freedom on Back Benches, and when they arrive at his office they begin to talk seriously about the liabilities of the State, and the responsibility anyone would incur who increased them, but my attention was directed to a speech the right hon. Gentleman made in 1904.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Was it after an all-night sitting?
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It was when the Debate on the Budget was resumed. I am quite confident—for I have

1153
seen him often—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite as able to say what he means after an all-night's sitting as at any other time. I think I ought to say, to be quite frank, that he was especially attacking the practice of borrowing for naval and military works; but his observations were much wider, and went much further afield than that.
Mr. LOUGH: The Government has stopped the practice.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington, says the Government has stopped it. They have stopped incurring fresh liabilities on that head, but they did not stop borrowing. They eased their conscience, and continued to borrow for some time. Observe, though they stop borrowing for military and naval works for the defence of the country which they are enabled to do because those works were in the main brought up to date by this very system of naval and military loans by their predecessors, they have continued to borrow under exactly the same system for other purposes not more important to the nation than its naval or military defence. For my part, I have never been able to understand the policy of a Government which could borrow to house the President of the Local Government Board and its clerks, but thought it was sinful to borrow for the defence of the Empire, which could borrow to carry out a telephone extension, but would not borrow to house the soldiers or sailors in our service properly. That is a nice financial distinction for which I can find no basis in common sense, and for which, therefore, I do not think the Government can take any credit. I was not going to quote the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that. I was going to quote them on the question of our financial reserve. What did he say? He said, in concluding his observations:—
"After all, the great strength of the country was its great financial reserve. It was so in the Napoleonic wars. "We fought and won, not with lead, but with gold."
That is a statement which, incidentally, I again say is a very partial statement of the truth.
France was beaten by exhaustion after its long struggle against a large part of Europe. But it was not so much financial exhaustion that beat France as the exhaustion of her population in the constant deadly campaigns which she was
1154
waging. Let me continue the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He went on to say:—
"We fought and won, not with lead but with gold "We ought to carefully safeguard the same reserve and see that we were in a good financial position, so that if an hour of trial came Britain might give the same good account of herself as in the past. We were squandering her reserve, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who declined to face, the situation courageously, was not one taking a patriotic view of his duty to the country."
I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's courage has oozed out since he came to occupy that office. What is the great financial reserve of the country? What has it always been for the immediate necessities of such a crisis as he pointed out? In the first place, it was a large Sinking Fund used in times of peace and prosperity to lighten our national obligations, and capable of being suspended at the outbreak of war, so as to give at once millions of money in hand out of your existing revenue towards the expense of that war. And the second reserve was the power in such a case at once to raise the Income Tax from a low figure to a high figure. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps the Income Tax at that high figure, and he has put the Sinking Fund at a low figure. He has diminished the reserve for war at both ends. He is not playing that part of the courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer whom seven years ago he painted in the passage I have read to the House. It is not only that our immediate reserves are diminished by the course the Government employs, but by the spirit of their legislation, by the tone of their speeches, as well as by the high rate of their taxation and of their expenditure they have caused a feeling of unrest and distrust which has adversely affected the credit of this country.
I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer reply to this charge on more than one occasion, and I do not think that the reply which he makes is satisfactory. He sometimes, in dealing with the fall in Government securities, lays great stress on a measure which was carried by the Government to which we belonged and which largely widened the area of trustee securities. No doubt that had a great effect, it was bound to have a large effect. But that does not account and cannot be made to account for the phenomena we have before us. It affected other stocks besides Government stocks, and if that was the only thing which was causing the depreciation of Government stocks, other stocks which were affected, such as municipal

1155
securities, ought to have suffered and to continue to be suffering to the same extent as Government stocks themselves. But that is not the case. It is those stocks which are most directly affected by Government action, or by suspicion of what the Government action may be, that show the worst results. It is therefore, I think, a fair influence that Government action and Government speeches are not without effect on that result. There is another answer the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives—the usual and generally extremely unsatisfactory one of the tu quoque. He says that Consols fell in the time of the Unionist Government from 114, or very nearly 114—the highest price they had ever reached—to, I think——
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Ninety.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ought to have provided myself with the exact figure, but I will take the one which the right hon. Gentleman suggests to me. I have not had time to get the exact figures in fact. But my argument will not be affected if I do put the price at the latter date too low. It is, however, suggested that Consols fell in our time from 114 to ninety. Has the fall been as great or greater since? Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think, or do those who use that argument think, that it meets our case at all? During the time the Unionist Government was in office they had to wage a great war and to borrow on a large scale, and, of course, such proceedings as that were bound to have a depressing effect on the market for Government securities, not only at the time it was done, but I think it was reasonable to expect that they would continue to have that effect, and have it even a little stronger, when the war was over. During the war the patriotism of the country was stirred and working in the City through financial houses and others it tended to keep off the full effects of the depression, which only declared itself after peace had been announced, and when in the relaxation of the strain there came a reaction from the efforts that had been made during the war. You may blame the Government for making the war. You may say that the war ought never to have taken place. But that is not the question I want to discuss now, nor is it a question that we can here discuss. It is beside the point. It is sufficient for me to say that it had the full approval of the House at that time, that it
1156
was regarded as inevitable, and that the proposals made by the British Government in the hope of averting it were regarded as moderate and just by the cherished Ministers of the party opposite—by the Prime Minister, by Lord Morley—who declared that the last proposal put forward by the British Government was a very moderate proposal—and by other leaders. I do not, however, want to return to that old controversy. I am not ashamed of the part we played at that time. We did our duty, and I do not think we could have done less. I do not want to reopen the controversy. I only say that if the war and the necessity fox borrowing depressed the price of Government securities, the lower we had to depress them the more one might have expected them to-rise. The inference to be drawn from the fact that they had fallen under us from the inflated price—for it was a perfectly inflated and artificial price when they touched 114, even allowing for the additional interest payable—the very fact that they had fallen from that inflated price that was a reason to anticipate that with wise statesmanship, prudent finance, and a Government and Ministry that was trusted there would be a recovery and not a further fall. Whenever there has been a recovery, even momentary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rapidly claims it as the result of his own effort. I remember after his great Budget was introduced there was a little rise in Consols. We suspected at the time, and we have since learnt, that it was caused by the Government sending their own broker into the market to buy. We got it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer months afterwards, and yet he was not ashamed to quote that rise as showing the confidence of the money market in his Budget, and that it could have no bad results. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not attach importance to what I say, speaking-after the event and with the experience which has since come to us, but may I refer them to some observations of the Prime Minister, who was, at the time he made them, Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was a speech on 10th July, 1907, reported in "The Times" of the following day. The right hon. Gentleman was attending a great function in connection with a very large insurance company. He said:
"He did not know if that insurance company were engaged in the gloomy proceeding of writing down, a practice which he thought was very much to be deprecated unless taken at comparatively long intervals and with full consideration, not only of the past and the present, but of all the probabilities and prospects of the

1157
future. A great deal of nonsense had been talked and still more nonsense had been written in the course of the last twelve months on the supposed depreciation of our national credit.… He thought, and he spoke with some knowledge of the case, that they might fairly consider that in this matter we had touched bottom, and that the upward process had begun, although it was far from him to predict the number of curves and gyrations which might take place, but there were distinct signs that the upward movement was in progress and was likely to continue."
I wonder whether the Prime Minister would like to repeat to-day that advice to insurance companies or banks, not to write down their investments. They are usually gilt-edged investments of the highest class; they have depreciated notably in the years since the Prime Minister spoke and the consequences of that depreciation are only too patent in the news that we have read of great commercial catastrophes and changes. I did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government when, having to raise a vast new revenue two years ago, they took part of the money that they needed by reducing the Sinking Fund. But in the light of what has! followed, in view of the price of Consols to-day—even when the Prime Minister said they had touched bottom, they were 84⅛—it is of primary importance to-day that we should have an effective Sinking Fund—a large Sinking Fund—and that it should be brought effectively to bear upon Consols and for the maintenance of the Government credit. Whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have been right to reduce the Sinking Fund two years ago, he is not right, having regard to all the circumstances which has since occurred, in spending every penny of revenue he receives up to the hilt without making any further provision for the reduction of debt, and not only using the present receipt of the taxes but mortgaging any future increase of yield which may come.
I want to turn to one matter which is included in the Bill. The only alteration in taxation of importance, in the sense of being detrimental to those whom it affects, or some of them, is part of the change which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes in the cocoa duty. The grant of a rebate on export of cocoa is a mere act of justice which I think the traders were entitled to have at any time they chose to ask for it, but the withdrawal of the protection—it is frankly protection—which in varying proportions according to the nature of their trade they have received is fiscally pure pedantry and politically pure expediency to ease the party situation of embarrassed Free Trade orators. For the sake of doing that the Government are
1158
going to throw into confusion at any rate a portion of the trade, and whatever happens and whoever gains by the proposal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes, it is not going to be the consumer. He cannot. Of the duty that is remitted, the middle man may get the advantage because it is an amount which you can express in figures applicable to the size of the purchases which he makes. But the reduction is not capable of being expressed in any figure applicable to the size of the purchase of the ordinary consumer. The consumers have nothing to gain. The trade and the workpeople have much to lose, and they are being sacrificed not for the benefit of the consumers, but in order to servo the political and party convenience of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is only one more instance of the way in which, throughout our recent controversies, finance in the hands of the present Government has never been treated on its own merits but has always been used to forward the party gain.
4.0 P.M.
What is even more important than what is in the Budget is what is left out of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now seen his great Budget, over which we contended so long and so vigorously, at work. He is, or ought to be, able to form, if his other occupations leave him any time to attend to what are, after all, the primary duties of his office, some judgment on its working, and granting that it is to remain, upon the Statute Book substantially unaltered, which, of course) I take to be his view and the only view on which I can approach it at the present time, I say it is high time that he should consider the undoubted hardships and grievances which the working of these taxes is inflicting, and should seek remedies for them not inconsistent with the principles of his Bill or the maintenance of his taxes, but such as will relieve men from the injustice which, when it is brought to his notice, ho cannot defend. I take the case of the scale of minimum duties. How long is it going to be before the right hon. Gentlemen puts the Licence Duties on some reasonable basis. He does not pretend that the present basis is permanent. His argument was that it was tentative, and I do not think any portion of the Finance Act has worked more harshly, or, let me say, more absurdly than the minimum taxes. Take the illustration we had before us the other night when a Provisional Order Bill was under discussion. Is

1159
it not intolerable that a man's taxes are to be settled not by a public and general Act of Parliament, but by a Private Bill, and that because the Corporation of some city or borough desires, for some very good reasons, to extend its boundaries, therefore every publican's licence or nearly every publican's licence within the city or borough is to be varied and increased to the extent of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., or even more than 100 per cent. Can anybody defend such an absurdity as that? Take the Cambridge case, which we had the other day. If the duties which will now be levied on the Cambridge publicans are just they ought to have been levied by the general law of the realm, and not by the provisions of a Private Bill promoted by the Cambridge Corporation, with the different object of preventing a particular event happening, if they could do it. If it was not right that they should pay before, it cannot be right that they should pay now. The same thing applies exactly to the added areas outside. The Chancellor of the Exchequer concedes this to the extent of a very small alteration which he proposes to make in the Budget to deal with houses included in the borough boundary, but which are entirely separate, and in a purely rural district. That is quite an inadequate tinkering with what is a vicious principle. The minimum duty as applied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is to say, the minimum duty, which is on a considerable scale is no fit way to treat this subject. It must work out with harshness in individual cases, and it does not even bring proportionate advantage to the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has all the disadvantage of being regarded as grossly oppressive without the advantage which oppressors of the people usually expect in return in the way of getting a very large revenue from their oppression. That is one thing which, in my opinion, this Budget ought to deal with and does not.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. There was a pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which I wish to call his special attention. When the great Budget was under discussion he had in it a provision abrogating the rule that purely agricultural estates were not to be assessed for Death Duties at above twenty-five years' purchase of their annual value. That is to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget made provision for abrogating that which was the old rule. He put it to us that he
1160
only wanted to deal with certain cases which we ourselves would not wish to defend as cases for exemption. He said that there are estates which are clearly worth thirty years' purchase, and that there is no reason why a man who is in the fortunate possession of better land with greater advantages should have a special exemption made on his behalf which is not allowed to other people. What we were very anxious about was what was covered by the Clause which was inserted. Many of my hon. Friends were afraid of what would happen. I was greatly reassured by a statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I was too much reassured unfortunately. I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with any breach of faith, because now that I bring this to his notice I am confident he will alter it. I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken as to the facts, and we asked him to alter the Clause in order to prevent that arising which he said would not arise. My hon. Friends were afraid that there was going to be an alteration in the method of the valuation of agricultural property, and I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question:—
"What I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me is whether I am right in gathering from what he has said, that the only effect of the change he proposes is to remove this arbitrary bar, and that there will be no change in the method or character of the valuation?"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose immediately and said:—
"I have no difficulty at all in giving that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman. If he will compare the operative words of the Act of 1894 with the operative words of my Clause, he will see that they are exactly the same."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September. 1909, col. 2113.]
Later, in answer to the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire (Mr. Hicks Beach) the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"There is no change in the fundamental basis of valuation. The only difference is that with regard to the limitation of twenty-five years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th September, 1909, col. 2114.]
The point which I raise is this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will inquire at Somerset House I am confident he will find that there has been a complete change in the method of valuation, and that the effect of it is specially to adversely affect cottage property. Cottage property on agricultural estates is no longer valued as it used to be It is let for the purpose of the proper cultivation of the estate; but it is valued as if it were being let to the highest bidder—perhaps one of those people who take cottages and make fancy dwellings of

1161
them, or as if a speculator had come in. This is a very serious matter. I think it is a serious matter for the land, and it is an even more serious matter for the working classes of the country. All of us would like to do something to improve the housing conditions in the rural districts, but this provision, as worked by the inland revenue, is a direct deterrent to the building of cottages, while at the same time it penalises the landowner. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give his serious consideration to this matter. I think he will find that the action which Somerset House officials do feel bound to take under the provision in the Bill is directly contrary alike to his assurances and his intentions. I hope he will undertake to deal with this matter, or to favourably consider Amendments moved from this side of the House when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
There is another matter of which the House in one sense is very tired, and yet it is one of which it is likely, unless the Government take some further steps, to hear a great deal more. I refer to the valuations of site values for the purpose of Increment Duty under the Budget of 1909-10. We had a controversy not long ago on this subject in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when his representative, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was present. We gave notice that we were going to raise one or two particular cases so that the Government might be prepared with an answer. The first case was that of the two ladies at Richmond, in Yorkshire. The interest attaching to their case was that it was illustrative of what we are convinced has happened, and is happening now every day in the country, namely, people passing valuations which are inaccurate because they do not understand the effect which they may have, and how their future position may be damnified by them in respect of taxation being unjustly increased. We specially complained of that. The two ladies, I think, are of the most moderate means, and their whole annual income was to be swallowed up in the payment of Increment Duty, which there was good reason for saying did not occur except in the mind of an imaginative valuer. We specially complained that these ladies had been refused a slight extension of time to state their grievance on appeal, so that they might present their whole case to the court. I am glad to say that I understand since we brought that case be-
1162
fore the House of Commons an extension of time has been granted by, I have no doubt, the desire and the direction of the Treasury; and that these ladies will have an opportunity of bringing their whole case before the court. I certainly do not intend to say a word on the merits of the case under the circumstances, but I do want to say something about the action of the Inland Revenue. That was a case where common justice demanded that the Inland Revenue should use the discretion specially given to them by Act of Parliament to enable these ladies to get a fair hearing of their case, but not until we raised this case—which is in itself quite a trifling one—in this House, and not until after the Debate here had exposed the injustice and hardship which would be inflicted, did the Inland Revenue allow this extension of time. I call that harsh and unconscionable action, and a denial of justice would have been perpetrated by the Inland Revenue if it had not been for the intervention of the Government as the result of the Debate in this House. I call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take such steps as will prevent the denial of justice in the future by what is a semi-independent, but at the same time in this essential a department of the office which he holds.
I now come to another case which we brought to the notice of the House on the authority of Mr. Holmes Ivory. The representative of the Government, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on that occasion had had put into his hands an explanation of the discrepancy. The House will remember, perhaps, what that case was. The allegation was that a property which had been valued for site value at a little over £20,600 was raised by the same valuer to £45,000. The careful valuation made on behalf of the Government as the basis of collecting taxes was £25,000 wrong, and £5,000 duty which was not by law exigible from the taxpayer, would have been charged because of that valuer's mistake, because, to use no other word, of his incompetence had not the taxpayer been rich enough to employ skilled advice to re-do the work which the valuer ought to have done, and to correct the mistake which the valuer ought not to have made. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury had put into his hands a defence of that case. The charge being known before the Debate, he had had the opportunity of referring to the Department and to the valuer concerned. The defence was that between

1163
the first valuation and the second there had been brought into the unit to be valued a new area which not only increased the value of the whole by that added portion, but wholly altered the character of the original valuation. There is not one word of truth in the statement with which the Financial Secretary was supplied. The area which the valuer was called upon to value was the same in both cases. He had the correct figures before him. They were sent to him by Mr. Holmes Ivory in the original form, and the only basis for saying that anything was brought in is that the valuer now alleges that some clerk in his office copied the figures wrongly. I suppose he did not go and view the site, and see if it corresponded with the figures given. But on the incorrect copy of Mr. Holmes Ivory's return the valuer undertook to say what the value of the property was. The man who has the greatest right to complain in this case is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He applied to his officials for an account of the case. He had given them notice of it. Did they tell him these facts? I am bound to suppose that they did not, or he could not have made the answer he did make to the House.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the facts given to the House were as they were supplied to me. But on the statement now being made I will make further inquiry. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. If so, then I was misinformed.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I made it perfectly clear that I did not make any personal charge against the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Nobody in my position likes to attack a Civil servant, but in this case I have no option but to place the responsibility upon the Civil servant. The right hon. Gentleman, when we asked him supplementary questions, said he could only act on the information with which he had been supplied. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman was supplied with misleading information to cover up a gross fault, and I think that such conduct requires notice on the part of the superiors of the people who are concerned. I will read the Chan-
1164
cellor of the Exchequer's portion of a letter which I have received from Mr. Holmes Ivory. He is the Writer to the Signet, the person who originally brought this case forward. He is a man of high standing in his profession and well-known in the public life of Edinburgh and of Scotland. He refers to what I said in the previous Debate and he says:—
"You are absolutely correct, I added no new territory. I stated the property to be ti655 square yards when the provisional valuation was made. The statement was of course in writing and speaks for itself. The valuer, in his amended valuation, states the site at 655 square yards—my figure. A mistake of sixty-nine square yards was made by a clerical error of the valuer's own clerk, but I have nothing to do with this."
I think the whole proceeding is not very creditable to the valuer or the Valuation Office up to this point, but if the error of the clerk was really to determine in fact the valuer's valuation and the error that he made, of course that error would reflect itself not merely in the site value but in the total value of the site and buildings as well, and would bear some sort of proportion to the difference between the site value of the larger acreage and the lesser acreage and the total value of the lesser and the larger acreage with the buildings on it; but the provisional valuation, which the valuer, I understand, now says is due to a clerk's mistake, of the site and the buildings together is £58,780, while the amended valuation, when he had discovered the clerk's mistake, which he led the Financial Secretary and through him the House of Commons to believe was the explanation of the mistake, was £62,244, or a difference of £3,464 due to the clerk's mistake in the total valuation against a difference of £25,000, which this man has the impudence to state is due to the same mistake, in the site valuation.
I call that the grossest scandal in the administration of the law as it affects the property of the taxpayers. I say that the Government are employing incompetent men to do their work, and I repeat the claim now, which I pressed upon the Government the other day, that we should have an impartial inquiry into the work of the hundreds of agents whom they have got together in a hurry, after receiving refusals from many of the most competent men because they would not undertake work of this kind under these conditions. I demand again, in the interests of justice and fair dealing, that we should have an inquiry into the work of these persons by some competent and impartial Committee. I do not suggest a Committee of this

1165
House; I prefer not to have that; but a small, impartial tribunal, which would find out whether these are rare exceptions due to the misfeasance or mistakes of particular officers, or whether, as we believe, they are commonly going on throughout the country. I venture to say these things because, whilst wealthy men, who can get good advice, may be able to protect themselves against robbery and fraud under the name of valuation, poor people are going to suffer cruelly, because they cannot afford to expend on their little property the same amount of money on law charges or land agents' advice, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can do two things: first of all, agree that a man shall have the right of appeal against the original valuation, at the time when taxes are first attempted to be levied on him, and when he first really knows what that valuation means; and equally, unless he will take steps by public inquiry to purify the service and secure that only efficient and careful men shall be employed on it, and that these scandals will not occur. Otherwise this tax will break down, not on its merits, but because of the inherent in competency or carelessness of the men employed to work its machinery, and because of the injustice which that machinery will bring home to hundreds and thousands of poor people in the country.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think I had better deal at once with the subject which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to in the latter part of his speech. I agree with him that unless a great valuation of this kind is conducted on a principle and in a manner which will command the general confidence of the Committee, it must inevitably break down; and I will not say that I am as much concerned as he, but that I am more concerned than he, that this valuation should be absolutely free from any suggestion of unfairness or partiality, and certainly from any taint of the kind of scandal which he imputes to the last case to which he referred. With regard to this particular case, all I can say is that up to yesterday the gentleman concerned still adhered to the statement which he made. The last time that the matter was debated in the House, I intimated to the Noble Lord, the Chief Whip, that if the Vote were put down on that date I would be unable to attend to it. But the right hon. Gentleman preferred having a Debate on that date, and my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary——
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it was because of his absence on that occasion.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, but I hear these facts for the first time now as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is a case for an inquiry. All I can say is that on such inquiry as I have been able to make now, our official adheres to the statement which he has made. But when a charge of this kind is brought by the right hon. Gentleman in this House, it is evidently a case where there should be most careful inquiry, and, after all, the proper official to make that inquiry is the Member of the Government who is responsible to the House of Commons for the action of these officials in the first instance. It is my responsibility to institute this inquiry, and I shall certainly do so. In the meantime it would not be fair to this officer to express any opinion at all, because we must hear his side of the case, and the matter is one which may involve in this case something which is very serious to his career. The right hon. Gentleman has been responsible for the administration of this office just as long as I have been, and he would do exactly what I am doing. He would see that the official of the Government gets absolutely fair play in stating his case. All I can promise at the present moment is that there shall be a very careful inquiry into the whole of the circumstances, and that justice shall be done.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will both sides be heard?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I will give every opportunity, of course, to both sides to be represented, but I should like to make this general comment upon these cases. The policy of valuation is something which has been settled by the House of Commons. It was settled by the House of Commons after a great many Debates, in which it formed the subject matter of contention. It was decided that there should be such a valuation. In fact, the valuation was even more in the forefront than the taxes themselves. We decided upon the valuation, which is not a very easy thing to carry out. It is full of difficulties. We had to organise a great staff—a new staff for the purpose. I think it will pass the wit of man to conduct a huge operation involving the assessment and valuation of hundreds and thousands of hereditaments in the course of five years without some mistakes being made. It would be quite impossible to avoid

1167
mistakes being made, and it would be quite impossible in the choice of a staff to avoid mistakes even there. In choosing hundreds of men, for the first time, to supervise and exercise the functions of this new organisation, it was impossible to avoid choosing one or two men capable of making mistakes. All I can say is this. We have made valuations involving eight hundred thousand premises up to the present, and I think it is a very remarkable fact that, having done that, we have had very few cases of complaint.
There is an organisation whose special function is to scrutinise the action of the Department in no sympathetic spirit. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has, with extraordinary ability and with amazing industry, devoted himself during the last two or three years to the task of criticising these taxes and their administration. He has got his representatives in every part of the country, and I have not the faintest doubt that if there was any approach to a miscarriage of justice it would be reported next morning in the offices of the Union. I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman would hear of it before breakfast—if anything had gone wrong in any part of the country. He has picked the choicest specimens, and there can be nothing worse, else I would have heard of it. We have dealt with eight hundred thousand cases, and I am really surprised that with a new organisation like this there have been so far so few cases of miscarriage of justice.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a serious matter. The right hon. Gentleman can have no knowledge except by testing individual cases how many valuations are at fault. Take the case of the Yorkshire ladies. Nobody knew anything about it until it came to paying the tax. Up to that time the ladies were well satisfied because they believed it had nothing to do with them. They were well satisfied because it was a low valuation.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are in this country the owners of millions of hereditaments who have had professional assistance of the first order to check everything. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make this charge against the officials, that they deliberately discriminated between these cases and the cases of those who have no protector. Of course he would not. But what I want to point out is this; There are hundreds
1168
of thousands of cases in which the people concerned have got land agents, solicitors, and surveyors, who are there to check the valuations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may depend upon it there are not many cases of that kind in which there have been gross miscarriages of justice. In the main, the land valuation has been well put through.
I have met the principal men and I have no hesitation in saying they are a very able body of men. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me they are not, and if he has any indication they are not up to their work, it is to my interest to examine the matter and find substitutes up to the mark. But certainly that is not my impression. It is not the result of inquiries I have made. Such land owners as I have had the privilege of conversing with speak in the highest possible way, not merely of the result of the valuation, but the way in which it has been done, and especially of the conciliatory way in which the staff have dealt with these matters. It says a good deal for the admirable way in which they have done their work that there are only about twenty-five cases of appeal. I think that is a very remarkable result. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman has any experience of valuation. I have had some experience of valuation for local purposes, and I remember perfectly well, when the whole of our union was revalued, I was then acting for those who challenged the valuation. We employed another man, and his report was that the other report was a perfectly grotesque valuation. There was great contention between the two forces. Eventually there was a compromise, and they have been as happy as any people can be who pay taxes. I am perfectly certain there were in that union 500 cases of the grossest scandals which would have shocked and electrified the House of Commons if they had been exposed in the indignant tones of the right hon. Gentleman. Does the right hon. Gentleman say his inference is that you must never have a valuation. The valuation machinery provided in the Bill was accepted by the House of Commons. It was not the machinery originally inserted in the Bill; it was machinery which the House accepted without a division. It was introduced into the Bill with the general consent of all parts of the House. The referees are not chosen by us, they are chosen carefully by the Lord Chief Justice of England, than whom there is no better judge on the great principles of valuation.

1169
If a taxpayer will not appeal what more can we do except what I am proposing to do. Everybody has access to the House of Commons, and I will undertake that any case brought to my notice will be scrutinised most carefully. If there is anything approaching a miscarriage of justice, I will, in the interests of the success of the Act, deal with it very rigorously indeed. I again invite the attention of the House to this, there is a great revaluation of the country going on, and up to the present there have been only twenty-five appeals. I have heard of very few cases which could in the slightest degree justify the language the right hon. Gentleman has used. I think he may depend upon it that the staff are acting with the strictest impartiality. Most of them are drawn, I am told, from the party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs—most of the employment which gentlemen of that kind get is derived from the landed classes of this country.
I come now to the other part of the speech. He was very severe with regard to the minimum scale of Licence Duties. I said to this House that I thought the soundest principle upon which it could tax licensed property in this country was the business transacted under the protection of that licence. I made a real effort to get a revaluation for the purposes of ascertaining what the value of a licensed house is. You may have a small house conducting an enormous business. That happens in these days of motor cars and cycles, and these houses, if sold in the market, would fetch big prices. On the other hand there are licensed houses with large rateable values and small businesses. I agree there are inequalities, but it is no fault of ours they have not been redressed. Publicans were invited to supply the Inland Revenue with all information in their power to enable us to make this revaluation. I do not believe I have got any returns at all.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: They could not fill them up.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have been withdrawn because publicans did not assist. The forms would not have been ridiculous if they had been supplied to any other branch of the business community in this country. Grocers, drapers, and ironmongers could have filled them up. The publican could not do so purely and simply because he does not keep books. He does not know what his business is. It
1170
is difficult to have a revaluation if the publican himself is not in a position to give particulars except when he claims compensation, and then the accuracy of his information is wonderful. But when it comes to a question of compensation he is full of information. When it is a question of revaluing he knows nothing. At any rate the publican could have returned those forms filled up to the extent to which he had information. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has."] That is exactly what he has not done. He gave it up in despair. He said: "I have no books. I do not know what I have sold, and I really cannot help you." That means the process of revaluation will take a very long time, and will involve a system of considerable checks. But it is entirely the fault of the publican. If he is prepared to assist then I agree with him that the general basis of revaluation on the business done is a sound one. It is entirely a matter for himself, and the sooner he supplies the information the sooner we will get the revaluation done. If he does not, then it will be a very slow matter, and what might be done probably in a few months must necessarily now take years, if the trade, whose interest I should have thought it was to secure this revaluation, neglects to assist us in the matter. I can quite understand that a certain type of publican—a man not highly rated, and with a low valuation, and doing a very good business, naturally would not want a revaluation; probably we could hardly expect it. But there is a considerable number of publicans in this country who have most commodious and convenient houses, but in which the trade in liquors does not bear the same proportion to the size of the premises as in the case of the small houses. I should have thought it was to the interest of these houses to supply such information as quickly as they could.
Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Why were the forms withdrawn?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Because we could not get any answer from the publicans.
Sir G. YOUNGER: They were withdrawn because it was not possible for the publicans to fill them up.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the same information with regard to Ireland?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I gave an answer some time ago about that. I do not know the circumstances with regard to it, but my own recollection is that Ireland did not want a revaluation, and that England and Scotland raised a demand for revaluation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, Member for North-East Cork, tells me that he is anxious for a revaluation he could assist me in securing it, but I do not understand that that is his position.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am going to discuss it.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot discuss it again. Would the hon. and learned Member mind discussing it now?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I cannot answer in a moment.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has exercised a very wise discretion. With regard to the form, I now understand that it has not been withdrawn.
Sir G. YOUNGER: It was publicly announced that the first four pages of the Schedule were withdrawn.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not like to challenge the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's information. I have generally good reason to know that he is accurate in his statements. I am stating what I have just heard from the Secretary to the Treasury. At any rate, I am stating the general position of the publicans of this country who are anxious for revaluation on the business done, so long as the Government undertake that in the aggregate the charge upon the trade shall not be increased. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for North-East Cork, is not quite sure whether he is or is not in the same position, but, at any rate, the publicans of this country are anxious for a revaluation. I understand that the majority of the Irish publicans are not anxious for a revaluation. It is not a question of revenue, but purely a question of readjustment. I am perfectly willing to facilitate readjustment between these houses with a view to getting taxation on a just and equitable basis. If the hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Younger) says that these forms are not so drawn as to induce the publican to give us information, I shall be very happy to get him and the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gretton) to give me any suggestions with regard to the questions to
1172
be put to the publicans and which would be useful to secure information. If they are anxious to secure a revaluation it is entirely within their power. Let them frame questions that will be useful, and then I will see whether we can draft something between us which will not merely satisfy the Customs and Excise, but also satisfy the trade.
Mr. GRETTON: Is the revaluation to have any effect on the minimum scale?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would certainly have first to get the information, and then I would have to consider the whole position. That certainly is one of the things we shall have to consider, but if I am asked to give a pledge now, and before I receive the information, I cannot do so. But really it is not a matter of revenue from the licences of the country. From the revenue point of view it does not matter. Then comes the question of the readjustment as between the various public houses in the country. If the minimum is taken away, then the only effect would be that you would have to put up the licence of other premises. That is all. Therefore it is as broad as it is long from the point of view of the publicans of this country, but it may relieve one publican at the expense of putting it on the licence of another publican. I think the man who has a low valuation, if the charge upon him were to be doubled, would have something to say that, would not be quite pleasant, but something to which I have been quite accustomed during the last two or three years.
Mr. GRETTON: It is the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, not mine.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was speaking of the minimum, and I simply dealt with it in reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. My view is that there ought to be a readjustment with a view to arriving at the real licence value, exactly the same as was done with regard to hotels and houses over a certain annual value. I am told on all hands that in the main they are satisfied, and they were very gratified that it was not as high as they expected.
Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman said he had only 2,000 of these to value, and he has 120,000 of the others, and he has taken all this time to get the information from the 2,000.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are 2,000 people in one case who could give the

1173
information, and in the other, 120,000 who are in the category that they cannot supply the information.
Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think that is so.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not like to say they will not, but they have not done it up to the present. The hotel keepers of the country not only supplied the information, but they have done their best to assist us. What is the result? A valuation has emerged which on the whole is satisfactory. They have put up their Licence Duty in some cases and in others reduced it, but in the main I think I am entitled to say the hotel keepers of this country are fairly satisfied with the result of the valuation. The same thing applies to those whose duty is over £500. If the same thing were done with regard to those whose duty is under £500 I think it would be satisfactory to the better type of publicans in this country—the publicans who have accommodation not merely for drinking but for other purposes as well. I would invite hon. Gentlemen, especially those who specially represent the trade, to help in readjusting the duty in such a way as not to bear harshly upon the better type of publicans. With regard to the Death Duties it has been represented that the change effected in the Finance Act of 1909, has had the effect of exaggerating the value of cottage property for valuation purposes. I think that is undeniable, in the sense that the effect has been that cottages used for the housing of labourers who are essential to the conduct of the business of the estate, have been treated as a sort of separate property which could be put up to the highest bidder and sold to any man who had taken a fancy to it merely for summer holidays, and not to treat it as a component part of the whole estate. That I think is very undesirable. I will look into the matter very carefully. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was kind enough to mention it to me last night, and I have made inquiry, but he will not expect me to give an answer at the present moment. I think that the financial arrangements that are made, so far as they affect the matter, ought rather to encourage the building of agricultural cottages in rural districts rather than discourage their being built. So far as financial arrangements can affect the matter, I think every encouragement ought
1174
to be given to the landowner, not merely to build cottages but to keep them in repair. So far as that matter is concerned, I certainly look upon it from exactly the same point of view as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
Mr. PRETYMAN: There is the question of the Death Duties and ornamental timber.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in 1909 we gave a very substantial concession in regard to ornamental timber, which has never paid. It is only when it ceases to be ornamental timber, or when it is realised, that payment is made with respect to it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says if the value of the timber rises to a scale just over £100,000 we are charging in another way. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down an Amendment on the Committee stage I shall be prepared to give him an answer at that time. I think I have dealt with everything except the question put by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Sinking Fund. He was good enough to quote a speech of mine delivered in 1904. I am very much disappointed to find that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City did not get up on that occasion. It is only since then that he has discovered those great financial truths, and, I have no doubt, as a result of the precepts which I taught him in those days. The hon. Baronet has extraordinary intelligence, and yet it has taken him at least five years to understand those precepts which I and others who sat below the Gangway occasionally taught him. I agree with the principles of that speech still, and I am doing my best to carry them out. The complaint which I made was that although the Sinking Fund was nominally bigger that there was no real payment of debts for the year, because, whilst we were apparently paying off some eight or nine millions of the old debts, we were incurring fresh debts in respect of naval loans and military loans, and the net result was that we were increasing our indebtedness instead of diminishing it. In the year 1904, the very year in which I made that speech, we were apparently paying off about eight millions of debts, but we incurred £11,750,000 of fresh liabilities, so that the net result was not a reduction of debt, but an increase in our liabilities of £2,238,000. What happens this year? This year the reduction of debt is a net one, and the same thing

1175
applies to the whole of the years during which the present Government has been responsible for the finances of the country. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, in the year following that to which I have referred, reduced the debt by £7,746,000.
Sir F. BANBURYmade a remark which was inaudible.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I say that the result of all those transactions was that whilst apparently you were paying off debt you were, on the whole, increasing the amount of our indebtedness. The hon. Baronet's view is that it really does not matter how much you borrow and how much you increase your debts so long as you have got a nominal Sinking Fund. What you ought to look at is the net increase or decrease of liability. I cannot say that the reduction effected by the right hon. Gentleman was the result of my speech, but, at any rate, it was the result of the Debate we had on that occasion. In the following year (1906), when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a net reduction of £9,800,000, and the following year £16,000,000. Then came the Budget when we had to borrow about £26,000,000 for temporary purposes. The net reduction each year has been seven or eight millions. I am taking the whole of these years. I have not got the actual figures now, but they represent something like £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 net reduction in our liabilities during the time we have been responsible. As a matter of fact, I am certain there is no Government that has ever reduced the liabilities of this country at the same rate, I will not say or in any other country, because the United States did make a tremendous effort after the Civil War, but apart from that instance there is no Government of this or any other country that has effected such a net reduction in the liabilities of the State. Then the right hon. Gentleman said: "Look at the way gilt-edged securities are coming down." It is true, but he did not dwell upon, although I think he alluded to the fact, that the reduction of the value of our gilt-edged securities was much greater when he and his predecessors were responsible for the Exchequer and for the finances of the country.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade a remark which was inaudible.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman did refer to it, but I have got the actual figures. In 1898 Consols were 113⅛.
Sir F. BANBURY: 1896 was the highest. They were 113⅞.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am taking 1898, when they were 113⅛ In 1905 they were 87½. That is a reduction of twenty-six points. Since then they have come down to seventy-nine, a reduction of between eight and nine points. Thus there is a reduction in the one case of twenty-six points in the time of the Unionist Government, and there is a reduction since we came into office of only nine points. That shows, at any rate, that depreciation in gilt-edged securities is due to something for which the Government is not in the main responsible. The right hon. Gentleman sought to find an explanation, and he is perfectly fair about it. He did admit that the war must have had a very considerable effect, and he also said that the effect of the war remained for a considerable time after the war itself had passed away. That is perfectly true. A war is like a fever, it searches out the weak points of the constitution, and not only that, but it is a very long time after the immediate effects have passed away before the constitution recovers its normal vigour and spring. The same thing applies to a war. Once you introduce it into the body politic it is a very long time before its effects completely pass away. Take what happened with regard to that war; take the prices of commodities. They went up, and they never quite recovered from the effects of the South African, war, and partly also the Russo-Japanese War. It affected the price of the necessities of life.
It is only slowly, after years, that the constitution, as it were, is able to repair the ravages of war to finance, industry, commerce, and trade. The whole world, in fact, takes years to recover the effects of the ravages of the war. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the merits of the war is one which for the moment we cannot go into, but you must take note of the fact that the enormous sum of money which was expended on the South African war had a very great effect upon gilt-edged securities. It is true, when we come to total up the wealth of a country, we will say it is worth, in the case of this country, thousands of millions, but, as well as that, there is the sort of floating cash necessary to run the concern, and a war consumes that. The amount of

1177
money which you have got to run. even a great concern like the British Empire is very small compared with the huge amount of property we have got. We run it on a very small cash basis, which the war consumes. The result is that in a few years you got a depreciation of securities running up to thousands of millions for that very reason, and because you are operating on that very narrow, small basis. In the case of the Russo-Japanese war they had to come to us to raise money.
Sir F. BANBURYmade a remark which was inaudible.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am quite willing to deal with that. I have dealt with it once before. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly stated that the opening to trustee securities of the whole of the British Empire had an enormous effect upon gilt-edged securities, because, as is very well known, with the limited amount of money you get in the market in cash, if you introduce new securities for the purpose of investment, which are substantially as good for the ordinary person as the security of the British Empire, such as in Canada, Australia, and our self-governing Dominions, that must have an effect upon your gilt-edged securities. If trustees are able to get a ½ per cent. more or 1 per cent. more when they know that it is perfectly safe it must have that effect, and it has that effect.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Although it is quite true, yet if you have a given quantity of cash if you introduce new securities you do not reduce the amount of cash.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should have thought if you had, say, a hundred or a hundred and fifty millions surplus available for investment outside your business, and that if you introduce into the market other securities to compete with your own, of course that must affect the gilt-edged security.
Mr. DAVID MASON: I think I can reply to that later.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should be very much surprised if the hon. Gentleman really challenges the statement I made. If he challenges my statement that the effect of throwing open of trustee securities and trust funds to colonial investment had an effect on gilt-edged securities, then he is the first financier I ever knew who would deny that statement. I do not know whether he does or not; he has not made up his mind.
Mr. DAVID MASON: This is not fair to me. You asked me for an answer just now and the House does not wish me to interrupt you.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should address the Chair.
Mr. DAVID MASON: The right hon. Gentleman rather addressed himself to me. If an opportunity occurs, I will explain my attitude later.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman wants to explain, but he will have an opportunity later on. I will go to another point. There has been an enormous expansion of trade in the last few years, not only of the trade of this country but of the trade of the world. That must have an effect upon gilt-edged securities. We have had great enterprises in the Argentine, Brazil, and other parts of the world, the opening up of new railways in our Colonies, and so on. All this is very useful to the trade of this country. It inures more to our advantage than to that of any other country in the world, because we are the great international traders of the world, and anything that opens up the resources of the world, such as new railways, must inure in the main to the advantage of this country, apart from the country where the money is expended. That must have the effect of depressing the value of gilt-edged securities. In recent years there has been a great fashion in regard to investing in some of these securities. As the hon. Baronet knows, there is a great desire for a high rate of interest. Brokers now, to a far larger extent than before, get instructions to invest money in something that will produce a pretty substantial rate of interest. There used to be a general desire in favour of investment in something regarded as very, very safe, although the rate of interest was low. Mr. Goschen took advantage of that fashion to convert the 2½ per cents. Now the fashion, if it has changed at all, is in the direction of getting a higher rate of interest. I do not know whether it is that the general peace of the world seems to be more assured, and that people therefore have more confidence in securities producing 5 per cent. You cannot get them in this country, but you may get them abroad. If you ask for a high rate of interest with a perfectly safe security in this country, I do not think you can get it. You can get nothing which is absolutely free from risk. But if you take the security which

1179
corresponds to it abroad, such as a great railway company, you get a rate of interest higher by 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in respect of the same class of security.
Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet means that it is not as safe. I agree that there is a greater element of risk than if you invest in a country with a sound fiscal system like ours. These are some of the reasons why at the present moment there is a depression in gilt-edged securities, which is by no means confined to this country. The hon. Baronet says that in certain other countries national securities have gone up. Of course they have gone up. In Russia, for instance, at the time of the war, there was a great revolution. No one could predict exactly what was going to happen. If, as a trustee, you were looking out for safe investments, I do not think you would have put your money in Russian securities at a time when a great revolution was pending. People were afraid to invest there, because there were great disturbances; it was thought that the Government was not secure; it turned out that it was, but at the time it was thought to be insecure. Therefore Russian securities dropped, not merely in consequence of the war, but far more because of the insecure state of things in that country. As far as Japan is concerned, the war was a great revelation of its power to the world. Prior to the war, people regarded Japan merely as an Oriental power, since then it has taken its place as one of the great powers of the world, and it is now in a totally different position in the eyes of the world at large, certainly in the eyes of the financiers of the world. Therefore I can well understand that the war might eventually have the effect of consolidating the position of Japan and increasing the value of its securities. But let the hon. Baronet take the securities of other countries. There is some special reason in the case of the United States of America, therefore I will not allude to that Power. But in the great European countries, Austria, Germany, and France, gilt-edged securities have gone down. In Austria and France—I am not sure about Germany—they have gone down much more since 1906 than ours have.
Sir F. BANBURY: No.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will get the figures before the Debate is over.
[Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANShanded a document to Mr. Lloyd George, and there followed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and two or three Members of the Opposition an interchange of remarks which were wholly inaudible in the Press Gallery.]
Mr. SPEAKER: Debate is becoming impossible. This is conversation. The hon. Baronet and others will have an opportunity later on. They have the full night before them.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There has been a drop in our securities, and I am sure it will be found that there has been a corresponding drop in the securities of other countries. At any rate, there has been a constant depression in the value of securities. In Germany, for example, I think it was 4 per cent. that was offered, and they only just succeeded in getting their money. The London County Council at the same time issued stock on which they were paying only 3¼ per cent. or 3½ per cent., and it was subscribed I forget how many times over. Every country is suffering from this depression at the present moment. Some of the causes, such as war, we must all deplore, but the depression is also due to a fact at which we must all be gratified—namely, the great expansion in trade in this and many other countries. I have heard of a great firm in this country who a short time ago sold Consols in order to extend their works. That process is going on all over the world. It is not merely this country; we have not a monopoly in the great expansion of trade. But you cannot make these great expansions without extending your capital. You have to increase your machinery, plant, and buildings, all of which means capital expenditure, and if you incur capital expenditure upon the mechanism of your trade and commerce you must necessarily have less money to invest in gilt-edged securities. I do not think it is a matter to be deplored at all that so much money should be spent in every part of the world in the capital of business. It is a guarantee of peace, and that has a value of its own. I apologise for detaining the House at such length. I have dealt quite cursorily with some of the questions put to me, but I might refer to one other reason why securities have been depressed, and that is the constant loans in connection with Irish land purchase. It is not merely the aggregate

1181
amount; it is the fact that you are constantly going to the market. The market knows that you are not done with it, and that you will have to come again. That must have a discouraging effect on the price of securities. There have been several small borrowings, and that always has a great effect.
I will conclude by referring to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the Cocoa Duty. He really cannot have it both ways. A year or two ago hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were always complaining about the protective character of the Cocoa Duty, and they made great party capital out of it in the country. They suggested that our own particular friends in the industry were protected, and that they started newspapers to support the Government out of the enormous profits which they derived from the protective duty. We always told them that it was no advantage to the particular industry, because they were suffering more from the fact that the rebate was not given, that, therefore, they were not in the same position to compete with their foreign rivals, and that it would be far better to put them on an absolute Free Trade basis. I remember that when I said that in this House it was mocked and scoffed at by the right hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Bonar Law). Now we have taken off the protective duty with the full consent and support of the very industries which were supposed to be making huge profits out of it. What is the answer? The answer is an attack and a complaint that we are doing something which is unfair to the industries in this country. I have received no complaint from the industries connected with the Cocoa Duty; they are perfectly satisfied to be put on the same position as all other industries in this country, namely, a purely Free Trade basis. They are perfectly satisfied that they can hold their own, and more than hold their own. They are also satisfied that the moment you eliminate this very dangerous protection out of the industries which they conduct, that they will be able, on the whole, to do even better than they have done in the past. They will certainly avoid the very unfair criticism which is levelled at them that these duties are continued in their interests, and for ulterior purposes.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given an explanation that the fall in Consols has been due to the constant issue of
1182
loans for Irish land stock. I do not propose to follow him in that statement, but I would like to point out that although, of course, he has existing obligations to provide for, he and his Government have taken very good care that in the Land Purchase Act of 1906 they prevent that reason for depreciating Consols from ever again becoming operative. His position also with regard to existing obligations is this: That persons who have applied for the sale of their land, and sold it, on the faith of a public statute that they would get their money on selling their land, have had to take under the Birrell Act a depreciated paper in exchange; and some of them may have to wait ten, twenty, or thirty years before they will be paid. So that the most miserable South American Republic—I do not know which that is, but say Venezuela—enjoys from the point of view of Ireland a better and more honourable position in the discharge of its obligation than does the Government of the right hon. Gentleman. So much for the question of land purchase.
But I rose to answer his question with regard to licensing. The right hon. Gentleman has put to me the most remarkable question ever addressed by a high Minister of the Crown to a humble and uninfluential private Member. The right hon. Gentleman has altered the law twice within twelve months as regards Irish licensing, and he proposes, by this Budget, to make a further alteration in the law in regard to the valuation of Irish licences. Then he turns round to me in the course of his speech on a mere interlocutory observation, and asks: "Does the hon. Member desire, or does he not desire, the law to be altered in regard to Irish licences?" What a question for a Minister who has made two statutory alterations within twelve months, and by this Bill proposes to make another. Is it by my volition that I can determine whether the law is to be altered in regard to Irish licences? Are the statutes of the British realm to be altered at my will or wish? And if I have the power to ward off a new valuation in Ireland has the hon. Baronet who sits above the Gangway (Sir G. Younger) that same power in regard to Scotland, or the hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) that same power in regard to England? Are British statutes, the statutes of this realm, to be treated like a conjuror's pack of cards, wave them and they disappear up your sleeve? "You do not like this particular

1183
statute?" a Minister of Finance says across the floor to a private Member who is asking for information as to whether a particular condition of affairs will apply in Ireland, and the Minister—the law being that of the King, Lords and Commons—suggests to that Member that it can be altered. What is an Act for?
I think, therefore, I am perfectly entitled to say that the right hon. Gentleman's question was not one which could be answered by either "yes or no." It is one that requires me to expose the extraordinary position of the Government, namely, they provide by a common Act applicable to England and Scotland, in the Budget of last year, for a particular state of the law in regard to licensing. That was not our fault. We fought against it. Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman: Is he applying that law to Ireland, and the suggestion he makes in reply is: If I do not like the state of the law it may be changed. What are the facts? That so recently as March of this year, in consequence of the protest, principally made by me, against the Irish Clause in the Budget Act of last year, the right hon. Gentleman has made a total innovation in the law of last year. I do not propose to debate that matter now, but I rise for the purpose of asking: "What is the position of the Government towards the Irish licence holder?'' because I will show the right hon. Gentleman, when I come to examine the return, that extraordinary increases are being put into these licences in consequence of the pretence that they were not affected by the Budget of last year. Here, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think any more vicious system was ever introduced by any Government than the practice of having two Budgets in one year. We had practically in last Session to construe the Budget of last year by a second Statute. The present Statute will have to be construed by an Act passed called the Revenue Act, 1911.
On 31st March last that Revenue Act, altering vitally many of the provisions of the Budget Act of last year, was passed. I do not think that has been without precedent in times past, but I say that it is a second time this Government has done it. Yesterday we had a big Debate as to whether you, Mr. Speaker, should be assisted by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in determining what was and what was not a Money Bill. I
1184
can only say that if this system of legislation goes on the Chair will be placed in far greater difficulties, because I should like anybody to turn to this Revenue Act, 1911, and put his hand on his heart and say honestly that it is or is not in all its provisions a Money Bill. If this system goes on, having in view the Parliament Bill, you are adding enormously to the difficulties of any occupant of that Chair. In the Budget Act of last year it is provided by Section 44 what is the annual value of licensed premises. We were told then that that annual value was to be in some cases, I understand, upon the existing valuation of the country—that is to say, Griffith's valuation.
But we were told that in England annual value would depend—and I am not quarrelling now with the justice of the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was reasonable, because he took it up again to-day—he said we only desire—and I shall show him how in the present Budget Bill before us now he completely departs from the position he took up at that box a few minutes ago. "We only desire—in relation to the publicans of England and Scotland—to tax you upon the amount of liquor consumed." That was after considerable Debate, and many interchanges and conferences had passed across the floor. Very well! The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the same doctrine to-day as regards England and Scotland, and the offence which I committed was that I got up to ask him was that the principle which he was endeavouring to force on Ireland? If it is a fair principle as regards England and Scotland, I asked him what was the Government's intention with regard to our country? One may ask a question without formulating any opinion in reference to the interrogatory until you hear the answer. I put the question, asking for information, because my experience is this, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Financial Secretary to the Treasury know what they are doing. The only Gentlemen who do know what they are doing are the Gentlemen who do not belong to the House at all, but who are sitting under the clock. They tell the Government one thing at one moment and an answer is given, perfectly straightly by the right hon. Gentleman, for I have always found him perfectly accurate and consistent, so far as he is instructed. But the notion that a Minister can remember all the details, can be conversant with all the convolutions of a measure, the notion

1185
that he can be au fait with all the details of the Finance Act, would be misplaced if even he had a hundred heads instead of one! A Minister can hardly be master of a department in a matter of this kind.
Therefore I say, that last year this House was fooled, and Ireland was fooled, on the Licensing question. The proof of that is this, that in March of this year Ministers had to come down and, practically by a Bill which was scarcely debated, had to admit the justice of the entire representations which we made from these benches as to the state of the law. But now in this Bill, having altered the law in March last, in this present Budget Bill—and I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman has not had his attention called to it—he proposes to make another total change in the law as regards these licences. I suppose his instructors under the Gallery, just as counsel are occasionally misled by solicitors in the court—his instructors have told him there is no change whatever contemplated, that this long Clause which is to be imposed upon this occasion will have no effect whatever upon extracting any further money from the publicans of Ireland. Before I come to the change proposed in this Bill, let me show the total departure from the Budget of last year. Although it was not a year ago the total departure from the Budget of last year made by the Bill of March last, the Revenue Act, 1911, was great. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if you are, under the Parliament Bill, asked to decide as to a Clause of this kind, whether it is or is not a Money Bill, I certainly would not envy you the task. Here is the change made with regard to Ireland—I do not trouble with regard to England. What you do is you alter the basis of valuation. You do not seem to be getting an extra sum of money from anybody, but you are raising the wind! In Ireland the machinery of the Revenue Act, 1911, Section (4), Sub-section (2) says:—
In Ireland the annual value of any premises for the purpose of duty on any Excise licence charged by reference to annual value, shall be determined by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in accordance with the Acts relating to Excise, but subject …. to the Inland Revenue Act, 1880.….
I make the avowal that this was in the case of Ireland. I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the credit for having, however belatedly, recognised in March
1186
that our arguments on the previous year had more in them than he was disposed to acknowledge for the moment. I say that is a provision distinctly in ease of Ireland, following to some extent as it does the decision in the English courts with regard to England. I believe I am right that Ireland has got by a statute what England has got by a judicial decision.
I am only giving my view, but now what does the Government propose to do by this Bill? In Ireland the mere publican practically does not exist, except in the cities of Belfast, Dublin, and two or three other places. Everybody knows that the publican is a man who carries on a mixed business, and we were especially strong upon that a year ago. The Finance Act of last year provided, and provided in a way that I thought was fair and reasonable with regard to this mixed business. It made a provision which the Government are now trying, as I suggest, to entirely go back upon. Here is the provision in Section 52 of the Act:—
The expression 'premises' in relation to the value of licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens, occupied together with the house in which the liquor is sold, except any such offices, courts, yards, or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be used for any trade or business distinct from any trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licence holder."
Was not that sufficient for you? Did not that reasonably detach from the business of the publican any other business he might fairly carry on? What is the proposal now? The fourth Clause of this Bill says:—
"The expression 'premises' in relation to the annual value of licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards, and gardens which are occupied together with and within the courtilage or in the immediate vicinity of the house or place where the liquor is sold, except any such offices, courts, yards, or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be used exclusively for any trade or business which is entirely distinct from the trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licence-holder as such, and also includes any building or place which are not within the courtilage of the immediate vicinity of the house or place where the liquor is sold is used by the licence-holder for receiving or storing liquor."

1187
I could not, of course, quarrel with the second portion of the proposition. What I ask is this, and I think we are entitled, having regard to the fact that the Government have chopped and changed in these amendments of the law for licensed premises—for what purpose is this change made as between the years 1910 and 1911? What facts came to the knowledge of the Commissioners that require these drastic changes? Here we have a Statute which practically, so far as Ireland was concerned, was hardly more than put in force. The same was true as regards England, but it is only in Ireland that to any extent the system of mixed business is carried on. In England it is carried on on a small scale, but with us in Ireland it is almost universal. What consideration was it that caused premises in relation to the annual value of licensed premises to include "any offices, courts, yards, and gardens … proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners to be used exclusively for any trade or business which is entirely distinct from the trade or business carried on upon the premises by the licensed holder as such." What consideration was it that caused that to be put in?
I am sorry to say I have seen a butcher's shop and licensed premises conducted together in Ireland, and as for grocery shops, drapery shops, flour and meal shops, they are very common as licensed premises as well, carried on under the one roof, and that was the reason why I questioned the right hon. Gentleman when he stated to those who represent the trade in Great Britain that he had been endeavouring to ascertain from the publicans in Great Britain what their trade is, so that there should be no increase in their licensed duties provided the entire amount remain the same. Did he address any similar question to the Irish trade? In ibis matter I am simply a seeker for information. I am not entitled to speak for the Irish trade. I am only a lawyer trying to construe a statute and to see how it works. I have no authority whatever to go further, and I have no idea as to what would be the difference in the fiscal result as between a system carried on such as is to apply to England and in regard to that which is to apply to Ireland. The definition of last year's Budget on the question of mixed trading was amply sufficient and adequate, and the time has not yet come when the right hon. Gentleman or the Revenue authorities are entitled to say that the alteration
1188
now to be made is required. Surely under a Budget only a year old you might let the law run for three, four, or five years, and then, if you found the law eventually to be defective, you could bring in another Clause. But by this means you have alarmed the trade. You have made the licensed traders bear an enormously high burden of increased revenue. Why then create further alarm by this new system?
The claim was made last year that the Budget practically made no difference in Ireland. Let the House remember that by Statute in 1903 it was provided that we could not have any increase in the number of public houses in Ireland. We may have, and we do have, large diminutions where men give up business and where the licences cease. Of course, we have too many licences. I wish there were far fewer, but my point is you can have no more licences existing than there was in 1903, except for a few hotels, which are really not worth consideration. In the return issued by the Treasury on the 12th of July this year I find that, page 6, that if you take £200,000 to be the normal Licence Duty under the Act of 1880, the Budget which we were told was to do no harm in the country made an increase in licences alone from £200,000 to £356,000. That is to say, you put an increased burden upon the publicans by reason of the Budget of something like £150,000 a year. I admit that the word "licence" may include brewers' licences, and that therefore this increase may not fall entirely upon the licensed holder, but I get a return and I can only construe it in any way open to me, and I find that the difference between the present year and last year as a result of the Budget in licences alone is £150,000. Therefore I do think that where a sum like that is so considerable to a poor country we are entitled to claim that further changes should not be made in the law by this Budget without some special explanation for the proposed alteration.
We were also told a year ago that when the Budget of this year was introduced tremendous efforts would be made with regard to the increased Whisky Duty. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I find in it nothing whatever in the nature of holding out any hope that that increased Whisky Duty was in any way to be tampered by legislation in the present Session, I read many eloquent speeches of Irish Members to the-effect that owing last year to the fact that

1189
the Government ware in a crisis they would not intervene to their prejudice, or embarrassment, but that as soon as this year came round there would be a fair field and no embarrassment, and that a strong and stalwart effort would be made to deal with this question of increased Whisky Duty. But there has not been a word said about it. So far as I can see the Chancellor of the Exchequer treats Irish opinion upon that matter as a negligible quantity. The Irish public were also assured that the entire difference which the Budget of last year would make was £400,000. I think that was the figure put forward by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). Others said £500,000, but the hon. Member for Mayo who is always moderate put it at £400,000 What does the Treasury Return show upon this subject? The Treasury Return shows that instead of a difference of revenue of £400,000 there is an increase of over £2,000,000, and I have arrived at that £2,000,000 not by taking the revenue for 1909–10 because if I take the revenue of 1909–10 it would be £3,500,000, but that was not all fully collected in that year, and, of course, to that extent also some allowance must be made for the figures of 1910–11, because you have a system of double collection going on to the credit of 1910–11, which would require some adjustment to be made.
6.0 P.M.
Therefore in order to arrive at what really is the effect of the Budget in Ireland you must take the figures not merely for 1908–9, but for 1909–10 as well, and, taking the difference between the two, you arrive at a conclusion, and when I stated last year in this House that this Budget brought to Ireland an infliction and a burden of at least £2,000,000, I was mocked and scoffed at by Irish members. But now I can hold up the charter and confirmation for my statement in this Treasury Return., signed "C. Hobhouse," No doubt if it was signed "J. Dillon" it would be much more important. If these gentlemen behind me were in a position to issue a White Paper containing their views and imaginations it would be very useful and important, but I have to deal with the Government, and I can only deal with the Government figures and papers, and I am therefore driven, much as the hon. Member for Mayo may hope to enjoy apostolic succession, to deal with the actual figures placed before the House by the Treasury Department. One other observation I should like to make upon this branch of the case is that these figures are not yet
1190
complete, and why? Because the Budget is not yet in operative working order in Ireland. It would not have suited the General Election to have put the Budget in working order. It was passed on 29th April, and the General Election took place in December, and practically, so far as Ireland was concerned, the Budget was allowed to remain a dead letter in that country for electoral objects. If I am wrong in that, if it would have had no deleterious electoral effect, I should like to ask why the forms which were issued in England and Scotland were not issued in Ireland? We are dealing with the finance system applicable to the three kingdoms. This financial system was applied to Ireland just as much as it was applied to England and Wales, and the first thing that is to be noticed was the section which said that a new valuation should take place of all the land of Ireland as well as the land of England and Scotland. That would have been most inconvenient for electoral purposes, and so the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Oh, it is true we have passed a Statute for the three countries; we have had to pass it for England, Ireland, and Scotland, but in Ireland we winked the other eye. The fact is that in Ireland we have such a wealth of information and such a plethora of knowledge as regards the land in the shape of information collected under the Land Act of 1881 and the Purchase Act of 1903, and the system of Griffith's valuation." Sir John Barton, the Commissioner of Valuations, has already told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they possess a wealth of information on this point, and that there is no necessity whatever to put the law in force in Ireland. If there, is no necessity to put the law into force why did he pass the law for Ireland? Is it not an extraordinay claim for a Minister to make that he will pass an Act for Ireland and avow in the same breath that he will not enforce it in Ireland? Already the Government are putting the law into force in Ireland because the General Election is over.
Those who have been talking about the supposed exceptional treatment which Ireland is going to receive, may be perfectly sure that whatever may be the fluctuations and vagaries of politics at an election, when the Treasury gets its pincers in its hands, and as soon as the political crisis is passed the people will not be spared. My information is that all over the county

1191
Dublin and county Wicklow, wherever site value is supposed to exist, a board of valuers has been sent out from Sir John Barton's office. All over Ireland and all over the seaboard of Dublin these valuers are at work. That has been done by Sir John Barton, in spite of this plethora of information which we are told he possesses. Observe what is taking place. The same thing is being done in Belfast, because there is a residential seaboard fringe which will no doubt have some special site value. The moment the standard has been created in the Metropolitan area and in the Belfast area, which are the richest parts of the country, no doubt these valuers will go from one county to the other, and by the time the next General Election comes round we shall know a little more about the result of the Budget than we do to-day. Accordingly, I say that the Budget of last year was intended to be, and will be, a blister on the back of Ireland. The importance of this will be seen when it is remembered that we have been told in speeches by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that whatever takes place under Home Rule these Finance Bills will be the law of the three Kingdoms. That is why this is not merely a discussion relating to the Finance Bill of yesterday or to-day, because we are dealing, as I understand the position, in regard to the proposed Home Rule measure, with what will be the law in Ireland even under the ægis of a Dublin Parliament. The Dublin Parliament will have no power to deal with licensing questions or Irish valuation questions if the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford be rightly construed by me. Accordingly these Finance Acts and Budgets will be just as great a blister under Home Rule as they are now. Therefore, I say it behoves the Irish representatives to watch carefully measures of this kind. I only know that if these measures had been proposed by a Conservative Government they would have been immediately attacked by the seventy horse-power of the Irish party. Whether proposed by a Liberal or a Conservative Government, the effect financially is the same. I do not see why we should not be allowed to raise our voices in protest or by way of caution whenever these changes in the law are made or proposed.
One of the dangers which exist to the taxpayer in Ireland is to be found in this system of using forms for valuation. It -was well pointed out the other day from
1192
the Front Bench that unless you give the owner of a holding an opportunity of stating what is his estimate of the valuation of that holding you enormously increase the power of the Revenue Department when a sale takes place, or at death, to exact an undue amount from the taxpayer. If a man says his holding is worth £1,000, and he sells it for £2,000, the fault is his own if the Government take 20 per cent. of the extra £1,000. If he has to pay £200 Stamp Duty on that transaction he has brought it on his own head. The scheme of the Government is, if that man declares the real value at £2,000 he should only be assessed at £2,000 when he dies or for the purpose of a sale. What the Government are doing is that they are leaving the whole thing fluid, and nobody knows what the valuation is, and they are doing this on the pretence that it is a concession to the Irish party. The result will be that your Stamp Duty will be fixed at whatever valuation the Commissioner of valuation chooses to fix. If you get a form filled up as to what the valuation is, at all events you will have the power to bring in your personal element to bear upon the valuation, but if you get no form, thanks to the statesmanship of the Irish party, this great concession will either, at death or at sale, be used as a whip to scourge the persons who are the owners of the property. What is the reason? The reason is politics. They do not get these forms because it would not suit the politicians, and amongst them I include the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is one of the most astute of all politicians. Accordingly as the Government depends on the Irish Vote for its existence, and as it does not suit the Irish Members that these forms should be issued, except in the town of Dublin, in a bit of Wicklow, and a bit of county Down, these forms are kept in the Customs House, Dublin. That, in my judgment, is an injustice to every person whom the Budget will ultimately hit.
In the case of the Income Tax the Income Tax payer gets a form, and he has an opportunity of valuing himself and putting a valuation on his own income. What would be said if he was asked no question, if he was not asked to fill up a form, and if the amount of his annual income was assessed by a gentleman in the Customs House, practically without an appeal, because the notion that there is any substantial appeal except by a most expensive process is ludicrous. We have had our struggle over the Budget of

1193
last year. Personally, I think financial matters ought to be placed above politics. Having passed the Budget and taken the responsibility for it, you should not shrink from its consequences. It has been said that this is a great and good Budget. Hon. Members opposite said: "God bless the Budget," and having blessed it in this manner by a solemn party benediction, I say every consequence of the Budget should be brought home to the taxpayers of Ireland. One of those consequences is that the forms should be sent out. Another is that the valuations should be made. The Nationalist Members are attempting to hide and mask and cloak the consequences of their own statute. The report which I have mentioned gives us, at all events, the first fruits of the Budget, and it showed £2,000,000 a year of extra taxation for Ireland. No doubt when the representative of the Treasury gets up that will all be explained away.
Mr. DILLON: It will be explained away before the Treasury replies.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then the hon. Member for East Mayo is going to have precedence over the Secretary to the Treasury. Does the right hon. Gentleman yield precedence to the hon. Member for East Mayo? It is a most remarkable thing that a Nationalist Member should claim that he will explain a Treasury Return which the Treasury themselves have issued.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I am afraid I did not follow the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: It would have been quite impossible.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: How does the hon. and learned Member arrive at his figure of £2,000,000?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell me that his figures are erroneous?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I only want to know from the hon. and learned Member who is seeking after knowledge, how he arrives at his figure of £2,000,000?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: I will read the figures from the Report. The revenue for 1910–11 is given, and the total revenue collected in Ireland is £13,519,000. Then I take as a comparison the year 1908–9, when the total was £11,285,000, which, according to my humble calculation shows an
1194
increase of £2,200,000. Taking 1909–10 the amount is £9,846,000, as against £13,519,000 in 1910–11. I hope I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman. Let me also tell him he is entitled to a slight Amendment on what he calls the true revenue. That is a fake of the representatives of the Treasury which I have never believed in except as regards such articles as whisky and beer, as to which no doubt more exactness can be arrived at. It is given on page 20. The estimated true revenue is given as £11,665,500, which of course would make the entire excess on Ireland something less. It is odd to me that the Secretary to the Treasury should need information from me as regards a Return issued by himself. No doubt it should have been signed by the hon. Member for Mayo, and that is why he is so much in the dark about it, because the hon. Member for Mayo says he will take upon himself the burden of explanation.
There is one other observation to be made about this Return. At the time this Budget was passing an arranged question was put, I think to the hon. Gentleman who is now the respected Deputy-Chairman, and who then occupied some post connected with the Treasury. We were attacking the Budget, and the question was asked as to what in fact the Government were getting out of Ireland for Imperial purposes. Amid salvos of applause the right hon. Gentleman read out a statement showing that Ireland was being run at about a loss of £2,000,000. That fake has also been exposed by this Return. We were told the local expenditure in Ireland last year was £2,357,500 in excess of the actual revenue. "How can you Irish," we were asked, "complain?" You are going to get old age pensions, invalidity and insurance funds, and all the rest we get out of the British poor box. "How can you complain of the fact that a Budget is being passed which simply asks you to recoup us to some slight extent?" Even the Treasury cannot keep up the fiction of a loss of £2,357,00. In 1909–10, even on their own estimate of what are Imperial and local charges, they show they are making a profit of £321,000. These are not our figures or even the figures of the hon. Member for Mayo. They are the best figures that can be produced to make a case for the Government. When that case has been made, not upon any figures issued by us, but upon the figures issued by the British Treasury, the plain result is that instead of this Budget or measure only making a difference of

1195
£400,000, which against the old age pensions was a mere fleabite, Ireland is mulcted to over £2,000,000 sterling.
Mr. JOHN DILLON: The hon. Member for North East Cork has renewed his complaint, which he has frequently made in this House before, because Form IV. has not been issued in Ireland. He reminds me of the little child endeavouring to get Pears' soap, and who, it is said, will "never be happy until he gets it." He charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with abstaining from issuing Form IV. for electioneering purposes. What is the hon. Member's grievance? He went down to the country and declared this Budget would result in Form IV. falling like snowflakes on all the small - holders for electoral purposes, although he knew perfectly well the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated again and again in this House it would not be necessary to issue Form IV. in those cases of agricultural land where there was no possibility of an increase in site value arising for an indefinite number of years to come. Furthermore, he described in that lurid language of which he is a master that another deplorable result of the Budget would be that every small farmer would be instantly assailed by a swarm of valuers from Somerset House. It was good electioneering, only it did not come off. When the small farmers of Ireland found they did not receive Form IV., that the Budget was not going to tax them, as we had told them, and that it was not going to tax agricultural land at all, naturally the hon. Gentleman's election perorations fell flat, and the result was not very prosperous for the hon. Gentleman at the General Election. Therefore, it is not unnatural he should come now and indict the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this horrible crime in not issuing Form IV.
The hon. Member says Form IV. has been issued in the neighbourhood of Dublin, Wicklow, and Belfast. Of course, we always knew it would be. Wherever in Ireland there is the prospect of an increase in site value, there Form IV. would be issued. I congratulate the hon. Member; he lives near Dublin, where there is every prospect of an increase in site value. He is more fortunate than I am. I live in a house in a back street in Dublin where I do not think there is any prospect of an increase in site value, and I got Form IV. the other day. Perhaps he will say the Chancellor of the Exchequer from corrupt
1196
motives abstained from issuing Form IV. in my case. He says Form IV. has been issued in Dublin and Belfast. Of course, and perfectly properly. It has been issued where an increase in site value may possibly accrue. As a matter of fact, the truth is the administration of Form IV. in Ireland, so far as I know, has been exactly similar to its administration in England, with one difference with regard to a general re-valuation. Strange to say, the hon. Member appears now to be passionately eager for a general valuation to be carried out. I have heard him make speeches burning with eloquence denouncing any Government which dared to propose a re-valuation of Ireland. It has been frequently explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Budget Debates that the reason why he does not propose to re-value Ireland is that Ireland has been valued and re-valued by Government valuers to such an extent that it would be a criminal waste of money to revalue Ireland again. They have material in the offices in Dublin of the most elaborate valuations, and to compare the administration in this country, where you have no valuation at all, and the administration in Ireland, where you have several most costly valuations, one superimposed upon the other, is really to throw dust in the eyes of the House of Commons. I was anxious to hear whether the hon. member would come to another grievance. He described these land taxes as going to crush the sole remaining Irish industry. What has been the produce of the Land Taxes? He did not read that. In Great Britain the Land Taxes in their first year produced £435,000.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The Land Taxes in Great Britain depending on valuation produced in the last financial year under £2,500.
Mr. DILLON: In Ireland the Land Taxes produced £1,000. I am quoting from a Government Return figures under the same head. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was interrupted by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, the right hon. Gentleman put to the hon. Member a very pointed and simple question in reference to licences. The hon. Member has dwelt upon that matter at great length, but I am bound to say I am still in the dark as to what he means or what he is driving at. It may be my want of intelligence, but I doubt whether anybody in the House knows what is his griev-

1197
ance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer put to him a very plain and simple question:—
"Do you want a revaluation for the licence holders of Ireland?"
The hon. Member did not answer. He said he would take time when he came to speak himself to make a reply. When we listened to his speech, we easily understood why he took time, because, although he made a considerable speech, he never answered the question at all. Does he want a revaluation of the licences of Ireland? Is he authorised on behalf of the licence holders of Ireland to claim a revaluation? He went on in a vague way to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, having made the law last year with regard to the issue of these forms to licence holders for the preparation of the revaluation, those forms were not issued. I always understood, and I understand still, the idea of this valuation was rather in relief of the licence holders than the reverse, and there was a most distinct understanding, not secretly at all, but across the floor of the House, that if the licence holders did not wish a revaluation they would not be forced to have it. There is therefore no mystery about it; it is a perfectly clear and straightforward transaction, and we have heard what has passed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has over and over again stated this revaluation was rather in the interests of the licensed holders than the reverse.
Sir G. YOUNGERmade a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. DILLON: That is exactly why it was, but now comes the hon. Member for North-East Cork and says, "you will not allow the Irish licence holders to be revalued." Unless the hon. Member will stand up and say he is entitled to speak for the licence holders of Ireland in this matter, I shall still hold to my view. I want to draw the attention of the House to the tone and the method in which the hon. Member for North-East Cork deals with all these matters. He was very indignant with me because perhaps in an unguarded moment I said I would explain away the £2,000,000. What I object to in the hon. Gentleman is that he seems to think any man in Ireland who endeavours to look at these figures and tell the actual truth is injuring his country. I do not share that view. I think our only strong ground to stand on with the Treasury, and from
1198
which to conduct our controversies with it, is to tell the truth and not to be afraid of the truth, and if we seek to palm off deceptive or indefensible figures that do not represent the facts of the case the Treasury will very soon remind us of it. Before passing away from the question of licences I should like to point to one statement by the hon. Member which is calculated to deceive us here, although, on the face of it, it is true. He drew attention to the enormous increase in the Irish Licence Duties this year. I want to utter a word of warning on that point. The figures for 1910–11 are subject to correction because they carry arrears, and they must, therefore, be carefully analysed. When the hon. Member said that the increased burden amounted to £153,000 he must have forgotten the charge upon the breweries. The general impression from what he said was that this £153,000 was falling upon the licensed holders of Ireland, but, as a matter of fact, I am told that £36,000 of it is paid by Guinness' brewery alone. Under the old licensing system that brewery paid, I believe, £3 a year. To-day it is paying £36,000. Will anybody in this House get up and say that this is unjust?
Sir F. BANBURY: I do.
Mr. DILLON: Is the hon. Baronet aware that Guinness' brewery has, since the Budget, added no less than £200,000 a year to their profits. They have never been so prosperous, and if they are making a net profit of over £150,000 a year out of the Budget, surely they can have no cause for complaint if they are called upon to pay £36,000 a year. I have never heard that they do complain. We have no ground in Dublin to think that Lord Iveagh has the slightest idea of reducing his subscriptions or lessening his benefactions to the city of Dublin in consequence of this increase in the Licence Duties. But my point in connection with this is that no man who heard the complaint of the hon. Member as to the burden on the licence holders could gather from what he said that £36,000 of the increase was drawn from Guinness' Brewery alone. That, however, is a comparatively small offence. The hon. Member wound up by declaring that the hon. Member for East Mayo had gone to Ireland, after the Budget, and had declared that it would only impose an increased burden of £400,000 a year on the Irish people, instead of the £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 mentioned by the hon. Member and his Friends. His

1199
memory is not quite accurate. What I said was that in the first year of the Budget, as far as I could make out, it would impose an additional burden of £450,000 a year; that when it got into operation the burden on Ireland would be £500,000 a year, and I ventured to say that it might in the future increase to £700,000. The hon. Member triumphantly takes up the Returns and attempts to show, from the Government statistics, that, as a matter of fact, the Budget has actually imposed an extra burden of taxation on Ireland of £2,000,000 a year. He was very severe on me. But what are the facts? The hon. Member commenced by saying that he wanted to be extremely fair, and, in order to be so, he compared the revenue of Ireland in 1910–11 with the revenue of 1908–9, the year before the Budget. As a matter of fact, the figures for the year 1910–11 include over a million of arrears, and that is a trifling balance which the hon. Member entirely overlooked. It includes the whole of the Income Tax for two years and various other arrears.
I have looked into these figures, and I find that the only way in which you can arrive at the truth as to what extra taxation has been placed on Ireland by the Budget is by taking the two years previous to the passing of the Budget and comparing them with the total for the two years subsequent to its becoming law. Hon. Members, if they will examine the figures, will find that that is the only honest and just way of dealing with them. I challenge hon. Members who wish to understand the truth of this matter to examine the figures for themselves. I will recapitulate them. In the year 1907–8 the revenue of Ireland, omitting, the non-taxable revenue, was £8,383,000; in 1908–9 it was £8,016,000; in 1909–10, the year of the Budget, it was £7,103,000, because in Ireland, as in this country, a good deal of the taxation was not collected. In 1910-11 it was £10,371,000, which, of course, included a great deal of the taxation of the previous year.
Mr. LOUGH: On what page are these figures to be found?
Mr. DILLON: I cannot say. I extracted them from the Returns in which they are set forth. I have checked them very carefully. If you add together the revenue of the first two years I have mentioned you get a total of £16,399,000—that is for the
1200
two years previous to the Budget—and if you divide that by two you get an average yearly revenue of £8,199,500. Now add the revenue of the two years subsequent to the introduction of the Budget, and you get a total of £17,474,000, which, divided by two, gives an average yearly revenue of £8,737,000. Deduct from that the £8,199,000, the average revenue before the Budget was introduced, and the result is we get an annual increase of £538,000. That is the effect of the Budget on Ireland, and what the hon. Member endeavoured to palm off on to the House was an. absurd invention—absolutely the reverse of the truth. In the great controversies that are before us, when we are going to endeavour to lay the foundation on sound finance in Ireland, that is not the way to get concessions from the British Treasury or to gain the assent of this House to our just claims by endeavouring to deceive it with manipulated figures. I have sufficient confidence in the intelligence of this House to be convinced that the resort to such methods would be fatal, and that, instead of benefiting our people, we should inflict enormous injury on them when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his experts had turned our figures inside out and proved to the public how we have endeavoured to humbug them.
The hon. Member says that Ireland is now paying her way. We on these benches have had to sorrowfully admit that Ireland has not paid her way, according to these figures, during the last few years. I do not admit the accuracy of the Treasury figures. We shall have to challenge them and endeavour to go behind them in days to come. But they are the only figures available at the present time, and, of course, the hon. Member for North-East Cork relied on them. But when he road out the figures from the last Returns to show that there was a balance of £378,000 coming from Ireland, I would point out that he did not look back to the figures for the previous year. There is a balance of £378,000 this year coming from Ireland, but it is because the arrears of last year's taxation, to the amount of more than a million sterling, are included in the Return. There are no arrears of expenditure on the other side. It is no use setting up a contention of this kind. You are utterly unable to prove it, and there is nothing to be gained in this House by making statements of that character. Some time ago we were denounced in this House as robbers of Ireland and accomplices and slaves of that arch robber

1201
Lloyd George. That is common language on platforms in Ireland when men are not pleading for conciliation. I have rarely read a report of a meeting attended by the hon. Member for North-East Cork, or any of his Friends, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been denounced over and over again as "Lloyd George, the robber." And because we have recognised and admitted the benefits which have been conferred upon Ireland under this Government, we also have been denounced as robbers and traitors, and have been made the subjects of other very strong terms. There has been hardly a meeting at which we have not been challenged and told that we do not dare to face our constituents. We have been told we would not dare face the people of Ireland. That was prior to the last General Election; and we were warned that the people would "wipe out the traitors who had sold them to the robber Lloyd George, who had imposed this imaginary burden of £2,000,000 upon them." Well, we did face our constituents, and we were not wiped out.
Mr. CREAN: You burnt your books.
Mr. DILLON: The result was extremely different. The hon. Member, in one portion of his speech spoke in very strong language of the destruction of Land Purchase, and he challenged a statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the constant appearance of Irish Land Loans on the market was a source of the depression in Consols; and he said, "You are the last person belonging to this Government who has a right to make that complaint, because you killed Land Purchase in Ireland." That is another instance of inaccuracy. The Land Loans have been larger and payment for land has been going on more rapidly under the present Government than it ever went on. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, referred to King Charles's head and the fatal effects to Ireland of the Land Act of 1909. That Act rescued Land Purchase from sudden death. Had it not been for that Act it would have completely ceased, or else the people of Ireland would have been ruined by the burden of the rates. Hon. Members talk as they ought to be ashamed to talk of this Government being financially on a level with low-class Southern American Republics. That is not a very judicious way to get more loans out of Great Britain. At the same time it is silly and disgusting language. What is the fact as regards the Land Act of 1909? It cost the
1202
British Treasury £15,000,000, and yet the Chief Secretary is denounced for having killed Land Purchase. To my own knowledge he fought one of the hardest battles that ever was fought with the British Treasury to save Land Purchase, and though he did not succeed in getting all we desired him to get, he succeeded in saving Land Purchase from destruction and in conferring on the West of Ireland, for which I speak, the most beneficent Act that ever was passed. This man, who has restored the evicted tenants in Ireland under circumstances of generosity, and who has saved Land Purchase, is denounced by irresponsible politicians who speak for an exceedingly limited section of the Irish population, as the enemy of Ireland and the murderer of Land Purchase. It is a degradation of our country. No matter how great the indignation of the hon. Member (Mr. William O'Brien) I shall never be ashamed or afraid to tell the truth about Ireland's affairs.
Sir F. BANBURY: The Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to me a few questions which I will endeavour to answer. He asked me whether it was not a fact that investors in trustee stocks had sold their English securities and bought Colonial securities because they get a larger return by about ½ to 1 per cent. The return given by Colonial Government stock is rather less than the return given by English railway preference or debenture stock. I think it is something like 1s. 6d. or 2s. a year less. Therefore that argument, advanced by him as an excuse for the fall of English securities, falls to the-ground. He also asked whether it was not true that some years ago it was the fashion to invest in English securities regardless of the yield—rather to take securities which were absolutely safe than those which yielded a high interest. He then asked whether that fashion had not changed, and whether it was not now the fact that people were inclined, instead of buying English securities, to take foreign securities which yielded a very much higher rate of interest, something like 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. There is a certain amount of truth in that statement. Some years ago it was generally the custom amongst people who were conservative and prudent in their investments to take English securities irrespective of the yield, but there has been a change and those people now will not take English but prefer foreign securities. It is not because of the increase of yield, because what has taken place is that the difference

1203
in yield between English securities and foreign now is much less than it was before. The yield given by first class American railway debentures is at the outside 4 per cent., whereas on English railway debentures it is £3 12s. or £3 13s. Midland debentures at present yield £3 12s. The best debentures of that class of security in the Argentine Republic now yield about 4 per cent. Whereas English securities ten or fifteen years ago yielded a much higher rate, something like 4½ per cent., their yield has diminished while the yield of English gilt-edged securities has increased, and therefore the very reverse of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said ought to have taken place. The inducement to sell English securities in order to get a larger yield in foreign securities is nothing like as great as it was because the yield of the foreign securities has decreased while the yield of the best class of English securities has increased. That is a fact which cannot be controverted.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the fall in English securities since he came into power had been no greater than the fall in foreign Government securities. There was some little discussion across the floor of the House as to what the exact price of Consols was when the Government came into power. My recollection was that in January, 1906, it was 90, and in December, 1905, I find that it was 89 9–16ths, so that the difference between my figure and the real figure was not worth discussing. The present price is 78, so that there has been a fall of 11½ per cent., whereas there has only been a fall of 6 per cent. in German stock. The fall in German stock is greater than that in any other kind of foreign securities. There has been, I admit, a fall of about 4 per cent. in Austrian, Hungarian, and similar securities, while Russia and Japan, who have been at war, have risen a very little. I do not deal with French securities for the moment, though the fall has not been 5 per cent., because French Rentes have been affected during the last year or two by the fact that the French Government is proposing an Income Tax upon them. If you take the price of French Rentes before the French Government proposed the Income Tax the fall was only about 2 or 3 per cent.
7.0 P.M.
The last time I raised this question I gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer the price of Russian and Japanese stock, and I
1204
proved beyond any question that in both countries the effects of the war have passed away, and their stocks have largely risen, while their war occurred at a much later period than ours, and while the effect of the Boer war, instead of having passed away, had increased, and our stock had continued to fall. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said I had taken no notice of American Government stocks. I find that American Government stocks have fail en in that period from 133 to 116. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was received by cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite. American Government 4 per cent. stock has fallen, but it is redeemable at par in fourteen years from now, therefore it is absolutely certain that as the period of redemption draws nigh they will fall in value. I have got out the exact figures with regard to the United States interest-bearing debt, and I find at present that of the 4 per cent. stock which is redeemable at 100 in 1925, the outstanding amount at present is $118,000,000, of 3 per cent. stock the outstanding amount is $68,000,000, and of 2½ per cent. stock the outstanding amount is $646,000,000. The 2½ percent stock a few days ago was at par. The right hon. Gentleman took one portion of United States debt, and that the smallest portion, which had not the slightest analogy to the subject under discussion, because of the redemption, and left out all allusion to the fact that United States 2½ per cent. stock, which is the barometer of United States credit, now stands at 100. I can remember some time in the early seventies—I think it was about 1872 or 1873—United States Government 5 per cent. stock stood at par, while Consols stood at 93. What is the reason for 'the extraordinary change in the credit of the two countries? I am perfectly well aware what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) is going to say, and I am going to say it too. I have never in the discussions which have taken place in this House in regard to this particular point, or in my letters which I have written to the papers, used the illustration of American Government stock, and I never should have used it unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done so, because I think it is not an absolutely fair criterion. It is not fair for this reason. The National Banks of America, which hold United States Government stocks, are allowed to issue notes against them. Therefore it is not an absolutely fair illustration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used that illustra-

1205
tion the last time I raised the question a few weeks ago. I have no desire whatever to deceive the House in any way.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The hon. Baronet will admit that the fact United States 2½ per cent. stock stands at par has nothing to do with the credit of the United States under the special circumstances?
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not admit that at all and I will tell the hon. Member why I do not. I have endeavoured to find out when power was given to the National Banks of America to issue notes against their holding of Government stocks. I have applied to the best houses in the City, and every one says, "It is such a long time ago, we cannot remember." My reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite is that I believe the power existed in the seventies, when the 5 per cent. stock was at 100. Now their 2½ per cent. stock stands at 100.
Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: The difference in amount is enormous.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Member to allow the Debate to proceed.
Sir F. BANBURY: My belief is that the power existed in the days when United States 5 per cent. stock stood at par, and that is a fact which should be remembered when you find that the 2½ per cent. stock stands at 100. I think I have shown that the arguments advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the fall in Consols are illusory, with one exception, and that was the argument as to the extent of the issue of Irish Land Stock. There I respectfully agree with him. There is no doubt that continually holding over the head of the market the possibility of further large issues of Irish Land stock does tend to discourage people. I have always said so in this House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to whatever credit he can get from that circumstance. There is no doubt that Irish Land stock has added to the stocks in the gilt-edged market, and the more stock you have to issue the lower the price will probably be. That brings me to this point. What is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing to remedy this? Are they taking any steps to remedy it? Looking at the Finance Bill, I find an extraordinary Clause printed in italics. I do not know why it is printed in italics unless it is because it is not founded on a resolution of the Com-
1206
mittee of this House. We ought to have had a resolution of the Committee of this House, but apparently there was not one. I do not say that that is so, because the whole time of a private Member is so taken up that it is quite impossible to remember all the circumstances that occur. I have been sitting since Eleven o'clock to-day on the Coal Mines Bill, and my time was occupied in the same way yesterday. Clause 8 of the Finance Bill provides:—
(1) The Old Sinking Fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, as calculated under Section nineteen of the. Revenue Act, 1911, shall, notwithstanding anything in the Sinking Fund Act, 1875—
"(a) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds, be issued and paid by the Treasury at such times as they direct to the development fund under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act. 1009, in lieu of the sums to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund under Sub-section (2) of Section Two of that Act in the years ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and nineteen hundred and fifteen respectively; and
"(b) to the extent of one million five hundred thousand pounds, be issued by the Treasury at such times as they direct, and carried by the Treasury to a separate account, and made available in such manner as Parliament may determine for the purposes of the provision of sanatoria and other institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis, or such other diseases as the Local Government Board, with the approval of the Treasury, may appoint; and
"(c) to the extent of two hundred and fifty thousand pounds, shall be issued by the Treasury at such times as they may direct for the purpose of the ad vance authorised by this Act to the Government of the East African Protectorate."
It is proposed, therefore, to take £3,250,000 out of the Old Sinking Fund and devote it to purposes for which it was never intended. I venture to say that in view of the fall in English securities the very first thing which the right hon. Gentleman should do should be to see that the Old Sinking Fund is applied to the purposes

1207
for which it was intended. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) and other Members of the Labour party now in the House. During the last five or six years the Labour party have always laughed at me when I have endeavoured to show that the fall in gilt-edged securities would recoil on the working classes more than any other class. I do not want to mention names, but it is a well-known fact to those who have studied financial questions that two institutions have suffered very severe loss, and that in consequence the working classes have suffered very severe loss through the depreciation of gilt-edged securities. Therefore, I contend I was right when I said that the depreciation in gilt-edged securities was a matter which should engage the attention of hon. Members, because it was causing serious loss to many great institutions in this country. This is the moment the right hon. Gentleman chooses to divert the Old Sinking Fund from its purpose to three other objects. I dare say these three objects may be very excellent. When the Development Act was passed I was not aware that there was any intention to utilise the Old Sinking Fund for the funds required under that Act. I was on the Committee which sat when the Development Bill was under consideration, and I do not remember that any indication was given that the Old Sinking Fund was to be used for the purposes of that measure.
Then there is the sum of £1,500,000 which is to be used for the purposes of sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculosis. I admit that the Insurance Bill is so complicated, that it consists of such an extraordinary number of Clauses, and that it has been altered to such an extent that I really do not know what is in it and what is not in it. It may be that there is a Clause which provides that £1,500,000 should be taken from the Old Sinking Fund and devoted to sanatoria. That was not my impression of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when introducing the Insurance Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did say so."] Of course, if he said so I accept the statement. I understood that what he intended to do was to provide £1,500,000 to make a starting grant, but I understood that it was to be taken from the surplus which would accrue from the 7d. and two-ninths paid by the Government.
Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE indicated dissent.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not pretend to know. I do not attach very much importance to the Insurance Bill; but if it is to be used as a weapon to destroy the Old Sinking Fund, I attach still less importance to it than I did before.
Come to the question of the £250,000 which is to be issued for East Africa. I dare say again that is a very good thing. But why take it from the Old Sinking Fund? I can remember again and again eminent financiers like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) getting up and saying that we ought to meet our obligations out of the resources of the year, and that it should clearly defined how the money should be spent was obtained. Always, with that exception, the whole of the Members of that party stated that the Sinking Funds both old and new should only be devoted to the purpose for which they are intended—namely, the cancellation of debt. But here is a party, of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished an economic ornament, actually proposing, at a time when our national security stands at about the lowest price at which it has stood for years, and when we have reduced the new Sinking Fund from £28,000,000 to £24,500,000, to take from the Old Sinking Fund £3,250,000 and vote it for these objects. Attempts were made, unfortunately with success, by the Government to cause a certain portion of the taxes which should have been collected last year to stand over until this year, so as not to be taken into the Old Sinking Fund. When one comes to remember that the Government has done that, and sees what they are prepared to do with what is left of the Old Sinking Fund, one's hopes that the financial question will ever present itself in its true aspect to any Member of the Treasury vanish altogether, and one is driven to the conclusion that not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, instead of endeavouring to do what I think they ought to do, and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he has done, exercise economy and foresight upon the finances of the country, are using these finances for electoral purposes.
The hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway (Mr. T. M. Healy) accused the Government a short time ago of using the Budget for electoral purposes in Ireland. They are doing the same in England in a different manner, because, in

1209
order to avoid putting on increased taxation, they are diverting money which should go in the Old Sinking Fund to expenditure for the year for which it was never intended. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite realises what is going to take place if this fall in securities continues. Suppose, for the sake of argument that when recently the Prime Minister read at that table a very serious communication, certain eventualities had unfortunately taken place. Where should we be with Consols at seventy-eight, with the Income Tax at 1s. 2d., or, including the Super-tax, at 1s. 8d., and with the present position of the Sinking Fund, which I can remember in the days when I was in the City was always held to be a great national reserve in time of war. Over and over again I have heard financial authorities in the City discuss whether it would be better or not to have a gold chest, as in those days Russia and Germany did—I do not know whether they do so now—or to have a reserve in our Sinking Fund which we had. All that has departed, and the old refrain, which I can remember:—
"We've got the ships, we've got the men and we've got the money too."
has departed also. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I do not think that the hon. Member is going to provide them. He would have some little difficulty in doing so, and nobody would congratulate him more than I if that were done. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced the tax upon short bonds to one-half and one-quarter per cent. By endeavouring to get too much it is evident that the Treasury have got nothing.
There is no question but that very large amounts of reserve bonds have been purchased and left abroad and never brought over to England. The consequence was the Government got nothing, whereas if they had been content to put a moderate stamp on at the commencement they would have had a considerable sum of money. The only doubt in my mind is whether, as the Government have overreached themselves, investors in London, having found that by leaving securities in foreign countries, they do not pay any tax at all, will not continue that practice, and not pay the tax at the reduced figure. This never would have occurred if the right hon. Gentleman—I do not wish to be offensive—had not been a little too previous. With regard to the provision that Consols shall be transferred by deed as well as by transfer of bank, I presume
1210
the transfer of banks will not be done away with, but will be an alternative. The transfer by deed I think is a very-good thing. It will save a considerable amount of trouble, though I do not think it will have any effect on the price, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced it. With regard to the Super-tax, I presume that we shall have plenty of opportunity in the Committee stage to discuss it and to move Amendments, because this is the 9th August, and it is an extraordinary thing that the first opportunity we have had of discussing the Budget has been at this late date in the dog-days. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this state of facts. A man and woman live together. They have an income of £3,000 a year each. If they are married that income becomes £6,000, and only one sum of £3,000 is deducted, and they are subject to Super-tax on £3,000. If they are not married the Income does not become liable to Super-tax, and nothing is deducted from it. The right hon. Gentleman is rather putting a premium on immorality, besides putting very-great hardship upon certain people. Suppose I take the example of brother and sister living together, each having £6,000 a year, which, added together, would be £12,000. From each you would deduct £3,000, or £6,000 in all, so that the amount on which they have to pay Super-tax would be £6,000. But if they were man and wife living together they could only deduct £3,000, so that Super-tax would be payable on £9,000. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give me some support when I move an Amendment on this point.
Coming to the fall in Consols and gilt-edged securities generally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that one of the reasons was that the country was being run on a very small cash basis. I think very likely that that is true. One of the reasons that that is so is on account of the Death Duties. They mount up to such great sums, and they must be paid in cash, so that a large amount of money which would have been available for carrying on business has been taken away. The Death Duties ought to be capitalised. They have not been used by the State as capital but as income, and the natural sequence of that, which must go on as years go on if these enormous Death Duties continue, is that the available cash basis for the business transactions of the country must become less and less. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for a

1211
considerable increase in the Death Duties he is responsible largely from that point of view alone for the fall in these first-class securities. I hope there will be a little economy shown by the hon. Members on the other side of the House, because I do to a certain extent sympathise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not very much chance of exercising economy, because he is always being pressed on by hon. Gentlemen behind him to do some little thing which will add to expenditure. All these little things tell. If hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to restore and readjust the finances to the position which they have completely lost the best they can do will be to try to be a little more economical and not spend so much money, oven though the objects be good.
Mr. LOUGH: The House is indebted to the hon. Baronet who has just sat down for calling us in the latter part of his speech back to the Finance Bill, and he will forgive me for saying that if he had left out all that rather doubtful allusion which he made to some American bonds in the earlier part of his speech and devoted himself to a criticism of the Bill and a plea for economy we would have enjoyed the speech even more than we did. The great question before us is what we think of the Bill. On the whole, I think that very slight attacks have been made on the Bill, and even the hon. Baronet admits that the Budget contains several useful provisions. There is no new tax; it contains a series of remissions and adjustments that will do something to make the present system of taxation rest more lightly on the shoulders of the nation than it does. The hon. Baronet acknowledges that, and his only criticism has been that, something more should be done in that direction. That is a very good way to put it. and when he puts down the Amendment which he promises perhaps some of us may see our way to support it. Meantime that ought not to make us ungrateful for what we are getting in the Bill. I believe that the country will receive, and indeed has already received the Bill, with considerable gratification. If Clause 4, which deals with the definition of premises, which has already been criticised, is open to the objection which the hon. Member for North-East Cork urges against it, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the point of including it in the Bill. But. I think that a very useful provision with regard to licensed premises in
1212
urban areas which are thinly populated is included in Clause 5, and these with the remission of Stamp Duties and the facility for the transfer of Government stock make a fair instalment of useful small adjustments to find in one Budget.
I had hoped to be able to make these compliments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, because I want to put in a plea for one or two other little adjustments to be granted. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will take note of these points, and if they commend themselves to his favour, I should be very glad if he could see his way to introduce some Amendments into the Bill afterwards. The first question that I want to call attention to is that of the Tea Duty; and I want to press on my right hon. Friend a consideration of the Amendment on this point which I have mentioned to the House before. It would be desirable to give this great industry, which affects some of our greatest Colonies, and so many people in this country, protection from the scares which take place every year owing to the fact that this tax is never settled for more than one year. It is always held as the one tax that may be altered at the last moment owing to emergencies which arise. Why could not my right hon. Friend see his way to fix this tax for three or four years instead of the one year in the Bill, or in some other way do something to protect the market from these annual scares. We had a great meeting in the city on this point. It was a perfectly non-party meeting, and was attended by men who have very large interests in this business. All were unanimous that the treatment of this great industry by this House is most unfair.
Nobody can do anything for two or three months during which some sixty or seventy thousand businesses all over the country and all the people interested in this trade are kept in a state of perpetual confusion with no operations going on and with many men almost reduced to the brink of starvation, wondering when the Budget will come out, and all because of a possible financial alteration which there is no likelihood of taking place. I think that the Government might reconsider this matter and readjust it in a more businesslike way than they have done at the present time. We have great difficulties concerned with the City of London at the present time, and it is a pity that the Government should add other artificial

1213
difficulties which could easily be removed from our path. There is another little point on which I have written a letter to the Treasury and about which I intend to put down an Amendment, and that is in reference to the coffee trade. There is some old rule in this country in the Customs by which if duty is paid on green coffee and the coffee is exported again the duty will not be given back. That rule does not apply to any other article and does not exist in any other country in the world. It is nonsensical, and I venture to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not see his way to put a Clause in the Budget to enable the duty to be given back which was paid on green coffee that was admitted and exported again. These are very small adjustments, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think them beneath his notice. I shall be very much obliged if he can see his way to do something for me with regard to them.
We had an interesting Debate on the far side of the House about a matter in which I always took a great deal of interest. I used often to feel when I sat on the other side of the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not introduce the Budget until the White Paper about Ireland had been circulated, for the simple reason that the financial system in Ireland, however much you may try to bring them together, is different from that which exists in England, and it would have been most useful for him to have had in the old days the use of this White Paper which has provided the interesting entertainment this afternoon before we came to discuss this Budget. This White Paper is a really remarkable document. I may remind the House of the view that was taken in this country a year ago with regard to this matter. Then a Paper was circulated which was as faulty in one respect as this new Paper is, but it was a Paper against Ireland and in favour of Great Britain. It was immediately commented on in every organ of publicity in the country, and it was said that Ireland was costing this country £2,000,000 a year. It was the first time for 110 years that Ireland had cost this country anything, and it was a mistake in calculation. It was merely owing to the non-collection of revenue that the thing occurred. After that time that mistaken opinion about Ireland had scarcely died out when the new Paper appears and we find that our old friend the Imperial contribution re-appears to the extent of some £320,000. We
1214
had a lively Debate on the far side of the House with regard to these figures. I do not believe that either of my hon. Friends was correct. The hon. Member for North-East Cork in taking the White Paper published this year, as giving a fair indication of the contribution of Ireland, was not correct at all. The two years ought to be added together just as they must be added together with regard to the figures for Great Britain. The method is to add these two last years together and take the mean of the two years. But I cannot agree at all with my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo, that we should add to it two former years. The same reason does not exist. My hon. Friend brought the former years in, I am afraid, as the figure for Ireland, because they are before the Sugar Tax was taken off. If you make a calculation in the way I have ventured to suggest, you will find there is an increase of taxation of about £800,000 to £1,000,000. I venture to think the real increase is larger than that because the new taxes under the Budget could not be collected so quickly in Ireland as in this country. The result is, perhaps, that the year 1911 produced a revenue considerably larger than the year ending in March, 1910. I believe the Treasury is a very wicked body with regard to Ireland, but I will accept their Estimates. Could they give us an Estimate for the year ending March, 1912, as it will be very useful?
I go into this Irish matter for another reason—with a view to elucidating this question of Irish finance. The Government have got a Committee at work, and I am not very hopeful about the result of its efforts. It is working in the dark. Nobody knows what reference has been made to it. This new Committee, which the Government have appointed, I call a hole-and-corner Committee. A Committee was appointed some four years ago to consider the finance of the Land Act. It was a secret Committee, we did not know its reference, and if it did not like the evidence anybody was going to give it did not take it. The result was a most ex parte report. We have had this muddle with regard to Irish land to the great loss of the Exchequer and the people of Ireland. This finance of Irish land was used as a battle-cry between my two Friends opposite. The Bill of 1903, which started this Irish Land Purchase, was introduced by the hon. Members opposite when they were in power. We have got to take up

1215
the burden and put through the business of purchase. The hon. Member for North-East Cork said it was at a standstill. I believe there is some purchase going on in the congested districts. In the rest of Ireland there has not been a single bargain since the Land Act of 1909 was passed—or very few bargains.
Mr. FFRENCH: That is perhaps not quite true. There have been some sales in Wexford.
Mr. LOUGH: I think very little land put-chase is going on under the new Act. It is a pity we, who are friends of Ireland, should quarrel about the reason. We should try to seek it out. I think the reason is perfectly clear, and it is, that the wrong stock was established in this country. Its denomination—the calling of it Irish Land Stock, caused it to stink in the market, and for every £100 issued there has been a loss of 6 per cent., because of that name. Why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the issuing of Consols. He would immediately get the money 6 per cent. cheaper than he gets it for Irish Land Stock. Surely an issue of ten, or twenty, or thirty millions of Consols would not seriously affect the market. At least it would not more seriously affect the market than these continuous issues of Land Stock.
The argument that was adopted by the Runciman Committee was that Consols would be injured by a fresh issue for the purpose of buying Land Stock. They did not see that Consols were even more injured by a rival stock, which pays a quarter per cent. more interest, which can be bought at a cheaper rate, and has exactly the same security. The two rival stocks have competed with each other. The bankers in the city have changed their opinion. I believe that now they will express the greatest relief if not another pound of Land Stock is issued. The money should be raised by issuing the best security this country has. Here is a difficulty of any impartial, non-political financier asked to deal in stock which has an Irish name. How can he get any facts with regard to that stock which will encourage him to touch it even with a pitchfork. He hears that the Irish are a people who never pay any rent, and that the chief sport in Ireland is shooting landlords. While such stories are in circulation, and while there is so much suspicion about Irish stock, no statement of the payment
1216
annually, such as Roumania, Turkey, or Italy can furnish, when there are no facts on which to base an opinion, I ask my hon. Friend can he blame the financier. That is the feeling of this House with regard to Ireland. Hon. Members have laboured to create it in their own country. A more false and unjust aspersion upon a country celebrated for its honesty could not be made. The rents are better paid there than here. There has not been a financial crisis in Ireland for fifty years. The facts have only to be known for Ireland to raise her money in a fair way, just as any country in the world. The Treasury will not allow the facts to be known, and through not allowing them to be known they incur £6 loss for every £100 issued. They do this through their stupidity and obstinacy. Seeing that the Consolidated Fund, in the long run, is responsible, why should not the House be sensible and issue the premier security. It was this House that undertook an obligation to the landlords—as sacred an obligation on it as has ever obtained. It is not a party matter. The sooner we get rid of the obligation the better, and we are never likely to get rid of it unless we take this sensible view which I press. The reason I mentioned it was the bad turn which Irish finance took in facilitating the raising of money. It is all going to be repeated with regard to this wretched Committee which is considering Home Rule finance. The reference is not known. It is something that is to be sprung on the House, suddenly if it suits.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is wholly irrelevant to the Finance Bill.
Mr. LOUGH: So much was said about Irish finance that I considered I might refer to it. Whether the hon. Member for North-East Cork is right, or the hon. Member for East Mayo with his smaller figure, we are increasing the taxation of Ireland steadily in each year. The Treasury has started a plan by which they make Ireland pay for every old age pension, and every sop and dole received. I think the Treasury are right in that. I do not want Ireland to be a pauper. I say that Ireland could pay for every facility her people are getting, but she is a country which requires economy in the management of her finance. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Banbury) to plead for economy in Great Britain. It is a matter of vital importance with regard to Ireland, and I would venture to give one point which is not

1217
entirely fresh to the House. There are plenty of hon. Members who are urging the Government to spend money. They say the country is rich; they say there are ample funds between what is a margin of subsistence and the taxes of the country. I saw remarks the other day, made from the Socialist point of view by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He indicated that we had a thousand millions which we might fall back upon for taxation. I do not know if I have given the figure rightly, but he said there was a sum which we might utilise in case of emergency in this country. I know how that fund is built up by some not very well-informed friends on this side of the House. They take the income of the country, and they allow a small sum per year for living. They say the rest is available. I never heard of such folly. If this country proceeds into extravagance the population of our cities will sink, our industrial population will go, and we shall be ruined just as the island on our western border has been ruined. The very thing that we shrink from we are doing in regard to Ireland. We are levying taxation in Ireland on the whole taxable income of the country. In Great Britain we are not levying on a fourth or a third of the whole taxable income, but in Ireland we are wringing taxation out of the people on the whole taxable income for the year. Ireland can only live in one way, and that is that these burdens shall be reduced, and that we shall have economy, at any rate in that respect. That is the strongest argument that can be brought forward for giving Ireland the right to deal with her own affairs. Until we do that, we ought to consider the heavy burdens which this House puts upon Ireland. I believe we ought to do everything in our power to reduce the burdens upon the Irish people. If anybody will examine the White Paper that has been issued, they will come to that conclusion. Let us leave out the dispute about the revenue of Ireland; the expenditure of Ire-land has increased by £600,000. The expenditure is £11,300,000. Ireland cannot pay that sum, and for these reasons I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the circumstances. If we are to plunge into more Debates upon financial relations with Ireland, as we shall have to do next spring, this House should be very well prepared for the discussion, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Department, without reference to any Committee, might not put the actual facts before the
1218
country so as to give this House fair play when it comes to consider these grave matters.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I ask the indulgence of the House, and I apologise for inflicting another speech on this Bill in this comparative early stage of the Debate, but I think the House has some right to complain of the action of the Government in regard to the Finance Bill of this year. It is true there are no novel proposals in the Bill, but there are a number of details of finance which cover a great deal more than. is thought, and if anything has been shown in this Debate, it is the obvious desire of hon. Members to take part in it in regard to many important subjects. Here we are, on the 9th August, in weather which more resembles the atmosphere of a stoke-hole than that of a deliberative assembly, and the Government are bringing forward the Second Reading of the Finance Bill for which this one night is allotted. And at 8.15 p.m. you are to have an important private Bill which is expected to go on until very nearly eleven o'clock. It is true that the Debate on the Finance Bill may be prolonged beyond that hour, but it is not likely that hon. Members will care to stay to debate matters, however important, at such a time of the Session as this, when very little good can come of it. The last information we have from the Government Bench was that they expected to get all the remaining stages of the Finance Bill next week. We have already heard to-day from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Monday and Tuesday next are to be given up to Supply. We have been informed by the Prime Minister that the Adjournment is to be moved on the 18th. We have the Appropriation Bill to get, and other measures. There are many important Amendments in various quarters of the House which will be put down for discussion in Committee. Is it conceivable or imaginable that the Government can ask this House, first of all, to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in half a day, and get through it, and then next week to take all the remaining stages in the short time available. May I say this, further, we have the Budget of 1909, which made vast changes in our system of taxation, and now we have just got enough information to enable the House to review some of its provisions, and consider their effect upon the taxpayers and upon the State at large.
This is our only opportunity, and I am sure I have the opinion of the entire House

1219
on both sides with me when I say that the opportunity is wholly inadequate. I make complaint about that, not from the party point of view, but from the point of view of the whole community. To reinforce that, I may say there are many matters I should like to look into, matters of great interest on which I should like to say a few words, but obviously there is no opportunity to do that. This Debate closes for the moment at 8.15 p.m., and, therefore, I must leave those matters, though more germane to the Second Reading, and reply to one or two arguments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) particularly in regard to the question of valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to face the figures placed before the House by my right hon. Friend, who showed that there had been, to say the least, very gross errors in certain particular cases which have been brought before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer airily assumed that these cases were, I will not say exactly solitary, but that they were rather exceptional, and that we could not bring many other cases. May I remind the Secretary to the Treasury who is here, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who unfortunately is not here, that cases of an exactly similar nature and character have been brought up here before, and promises have been made that the whole of the circumstances would be considered. As far as I am aware those promises have not been fulfilled, and no notice has been taken until the anger of the country and of the House as a whole, has been aroused, and the attention of the House has been called to these iniquities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was impossible to avoid mistakes with a new staff. Later on in his speech he paid a tribute to the general excellence and quality of the staff whom he had appointed. I have no quarrel with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I entirely admit that with a new staff dealing with a new valuation of this character, a few mistakes would be inevitable. I also agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that so far as my information goes, the general conduct of individual valuers has been admirable, that they have been most conciliatory, and that they have endeavoured to the best of their ability to carry out the practically impos-
1220
sible task which they have been set. Therefore I make no attack on the valuers as a body of any sort or kind.
May I at this very early stage call the attention of the Committee to a document issued to-day? I think in that document we shall find a good deal of ground for the action of the valuer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Secretary to the Treasury was good enough, at my instance I think, to lay upon the Table a copy of the instructions to valuers, which were issued on the 21st January, 1911. It is a rather interesting document. When this House imposed Increment Value Duty, if there was one statement made more frequently than another, and repeated every time this matter was discussed, it was this that these duties, the. Increment Value Duty and the Undeveloped Land Duty, were laid upon land only, and not upon buildings. The idea was that buildings were to be relieved. Now let us see what the instructions to valuers were. They go-in some detail into the methods on which valuation is to be carried out. Then it goes on to say what the results of this method will be. These are the words:—
"By this method the following results should be achieved: (1) The transferor will not be called upon to pay Increment Value Duty in respect of any recovery in the value of buildings."
That seems to me to admit that buildings may increase in value. Next:—
"Increment Value Duty would be collectible in all cases where there has been either (a) an increase in the value of the site compared with the original site value, or—"
That is the form of tax which was sanctioned by this House:—
"(b) the unit of valuation (or an interest therein) has actually been sold for more than its worth at the time"
Does the House appreciate that? The valuers are instructed by the Department of Inland Revenue that the duty is collectible where "the unit of valuation (or interest therein) has been sold for more than—in the opinion of the valuer, I suppose—it is worth at the time. May I ask the Treasury Bench what authority they have got from this House to impose the duty under those circumstances? Where is that authority? There is no such authority. Even in the Act where there is authority for a good many iniquities, there is no authority for that particular iniquity. It has been repudiated, over and over again. Hon. Members below the Gangway, who take an interest in taxation on land values, are agreed that buildings should be absolutely free from

1221
taxation. Here we have the valuers instructed in so many words what they are to do in regard to buildings. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers that I asked a question in debate not long ago on this subject. I said: "Are you taxing occasional profits, or is only land being taxed?" Here are the instructions:—
"Where occasional profit is made on the entire unit Increment Value Duty will be collected."
8.0 P.M.
It may be wholly on the building, as my right hon. Friend near me says. That is a very serious matter, affecting millions of owners of buildings in this country. The House has not enacted that, and that is perhaps the most serious part of the charge. Here is this House claiming absolute and sole control over all legislation, particularly financial legislation, yet the House has parted with this control, apparently, to a bureaucracy of officials and valuers, to whom large salaries are paid, and who, I suppose, in consideration of the magnitude of their salaries, are capable of taking over the functions which used to be exercised by this House and the other House as well. There is no authority for it, absolutely no authority for it, in any shape or form. This bureaucracy, without the authority of the legislature, are demanding from every owner of realty who sells his property, and who receives a price for it which is something greater than they consider he ought to get, or "more than it is worth at the time," in the opinion of the valuer, of course—the owner of realty who receives any occasional profit has to pay a tax upon it. Will the House sanction that? The House has not sanctioned it. I do ask the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House to put an end to this system of taxation, not by this House, but by a Department without the authority of this House. What is the result of all this? And what kind of profits are going to be taxed? The case given by Mr. Holmes Ivory, brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, is pretty fresh in the minds of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was a Land Union case, and that he was quite sure if the Land Union had any stronger cases they would have brought them forward, and he assumed there were no stronger cases. I have a paper here which contains the record of a pretty considerable number of worse cases. Here is one. It is the case of a property in
1222
Glasgow, of which the original gross value was put at £150,000, and the fee simple of the land divested of the buildings £89,000, bringing out an original assessable site value of £61,000. That value was objected to exactly under similar circumstances to the other case, also in Glasgow, mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The valuer ultimately agreed to alter the original gross value to £179,000, and the deduction to £80,000, leaving the original assessable site value at £99,454. In other words he raised the assessable site value by no less than £38,374 in this one property. The difference between the two sums would, had the original valuation been allowed to stand, mean an Increment Tax of £7,075. In the other case £5,000 of duty would have been claimed. Therefore I have accepted the Chancellor's challenge, and, without going any further than the papers actually in my hand, I have produced a worse case, where there would have been nothing less than a fraudulent charge of £7,000 on the owner of the property in Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer airily assumed that these cases are few in number. I tell the House, with all sense of responsibility, that there are tens of thousands of such cases, but they are in their earlier stages. These cases and the Richmond case differ in no degree from tens of thousands, except that the value taken has actually been consummated. I use strong words, but not at all in an offensive sense.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: That case, as a matter of fact, is under adjudication, and it may be that the courts will entirely repudiate the complexion which he has put upon it.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I regret it slipped my memory that the matter was under adjudication. I withdraw any statement which could be considered as referring improperly to a case under adjudication. In the Richmond case the entire procedure had been completed and there we were able to show the case in all its details. Cases exactly similar have been before the House and can be produced when the procedure has been completed and where there has been an under-valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they are very few, but the fact is they come in not in ones or twos, but in hundreds. If the right hon. Gentleman will look back through the Debates he will find dozens of cases have been referred to, and we are always receiving many new ones. Here is a letter from the secretary of the Small Dwellings

1223
Acquisition Company, Limited, of 11, Ironmonger Lane, London, in which he says:—
"We are a small company formed with the object of giving working men the opportunity of purchasing their houses on the instalment system. We have been served with a notice of provisional valuation (Form 36, Land) to the effect that our houses have been valued at an average of £215, whereas they actually cost us an average of £283 per house, with the result that we are liable for an Increment Duty amounting to £15 per house on completion of a sale. We have objected to the valuation on the ground that we have sold the houses at slightly above the actual cost price. We notice under Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1910, Valuation is to be considered as if sold in the open market,' and have been informed no alteration in the valuer's figures can be made."
You have here then a case in which there is no profit at all, but on the principle of the last paragraph of the instructions, when they sell their houses there is an imaginary profit, and Increment Value Duty is to be levied. These cases are in thousands, and the only difference is that the duty has not yet been actually claimed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked another very important question. Did we claim that the valuers were distinguishing between the well-to-do people, who had the advantage of professional advice, and the small owner, who had not that advantage. I shall not charge the valuers with knowingly and wilfully making those distinctions, but events force it upon me. What they are doing is systematically under-valuing—I cannot say it is so in every place—but all I can say is that information comes from every part of the country that they are systematically undervaluing land which is built upon in order to get Increment Value Duty, and that they over-value land which has not been built upon in order to get Undeveloped Land Duty. Several concrete cases have come to my notice of that where that under-valuation is taking place on all his property built upon. It is obvious that where the owner is a well-to-do person he has the advantage of professional advice, and makes objection. He protests, and as in the case of Mr. Holmes Ivory, and as in the £35,000 case, which I quoted just now, the figure is put right. The small owner who has no knowledge, and cannot employ professional advice, is always content with the idea, naturally, that a low valuation means a low tax. He does not protest, the sixty days go by, and he is for ever saddled with this under-valuation. Then, when he parts with the property, the duty is fastened on him, and there is no opportunity of appealing. That is what has happened. It is no new story.
1224
What I object to is that all these points have been mentioned months ago, and no action is taken, and no action would be taken if it were not that the attention of the House and of the country has been drawn to this matter, and that there is a feeling growing throughout the country that these matters must be put right. The Government had their attention called to them, and have taken no action. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a case in point. I brought forward figures from the town of Nottingham where property in the centre of the town had been valued at 2s. per square yard. That is the property of a considerable property owner. The figures were sent to the Treasury. The owner's solicitor objected, and he got that valuation raised to 3s. 6d. per square yard, but all the property of the small owners in the same neighbourhood remains to-day, as far as I know, at 2s. That is what I claim as actual discrimination. I have nothing to do with motives. I do not accuse the valuer or the Department of going and wilfully placing less taxes on the rich man than the poor man, but I say that is the effect of the procedure, because one person is capable of resisting and protecting himself while the other is not. There is a further point which arises out of that. If this under-valuation of property is to stand, and if the sixty days have expired, there is to be no further opportunity of appeal, and the burden is fastened upon those small owners for ever. It appears to me, and I think my right hon. Friend suggested it, that there is only one course which this House in fairness can take in the tens of thousands of those small owners who have these valuations fixed upon them and where the sixty days have expired. It is obvious that the only thing which calls the attention of the small owner to the real consequences of the valuation is, as in the Richmond case, when the claim for the tax is made. Therefore the opportunity to appeal ought not only to lie at the time the provisional valuation is served, but every owner ought to have the opportunity of a period of, say, sixty days from the time of the first claim being served upon him either for Increment Value Duty or Undeveloped Land Duty to appeal so that the under-valuation can be reviewed and so that there may be some result or comparative fairness.
There is another matter again which arises out of this. Here you have a valuation. What is the object of this valuation? We are told that all the land is being

1225
valued and that the knowledge as to its value will be of infinite use in the assessment of rates and taxes. May I ask the House seriously to consider of what value can the valuation of this kind be when in cases which are brought here you have errors of 50 and 60 per cent. in the values fixed by the valuers. In one case alone of one house there is an error of £25,000, and in another a sum of £38,000. May I say that in that case of the £38,000 the writer of the letter goes on to say that similar cases occur all over Glasgow, but that in many cases the owners do not understand what is going on and do not object. What is the value of figures obtained for Glasgow under those circumstances, and probably the same thing applies in most of the large towns of the country. The whole object of this valuation appears to me to be defeated by these errors. I will not now detain the House as I have made the particular point I desired to make and have called the attention of the House to the instruction issued to valuers. I hope when we get a reply from the Treasury Bench some justification will be given us of the instructions by which a tax is charged upon occasional profit. There are many other matters I should like to refer to, but I will defer those till we get what I hope will be an extended and better opportunity in Committee of moving new Clauses.
And, it being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceedings were postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (NEW WORKS) BILL.— [Lords.]—(By Order.)
  As amended, considered.
  EARL Of RONALDSHAY: I beg to move, after Clause 23, to insert the following

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision where Local Sources of Supply Affected.)
  (1) If any operations of the Board for the purposes of or in connection with the construction of any reservoir by this Act authorised has caused any diminution of the supply of water from any well, borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream, or
  1226
  watering-place, or other source of supply existing at the date of the passing of this Act within the administrative county of Middlesex, and within a radius of two miles from the site of any such reservoir, the Board shall, upon the written request of the owner (which term in this section shall include any lessee or occupier) of such source of supply repay to the owner all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the owner in obtaining such additional supply of water as may be or may have been reasonably necessary to make his supply of water the same as nearly as may be as his supply was before the commencement of such operations of the Board.
  (2) The owner shall afford the officers, servants, or other representatives of the Board at all reasonable times after the passing of this Act access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein.
  (3) Any question or dispute arising under this section shall be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties, or, in default of agreement, to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference.
  I have a Motion on the Paper to the effect that this Bill should be considered on this day three months. If that were carried it would mean that the Bill as a whole would be destroyed. The object which I, and those who are working with me in this matter, have in view is not the destruction of the Bill, but its modification in certain respects. I propose, therefore, not to move that the consideration be postponed to this day three months, but that the new Clause which stands in my name should be inserted. Under the Bill the Water Board seek to acquire power to construct certain reservoirs. The particular reservoirs in which we are interested are those known as Nos. 6 and 7, which are to be constructed in Middlesex, between the villages of Laleham and Littleton. These are to be very large reservoirs, and in order to construct them it will be necessary to sink a trench for a very considerable depth until the London clay is reached. When this Bill was last under discussion, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) informed us that nowhere in the Thames Valley would it be necessary

  1227
  to sink what is known as a puddle trench to a greater depth than 10 ft., though he did admit that there might be what he described as "a solitary spot" where it might be necessary to go to a depth of as much as 80 ft. He informed the House, however, that if was extremely unlikely that it would be necessary, in the case of large reservoirs of this kind, to sink a trench of anything like that depth. All that I can say is that, if that be so, the Metropolitan Water Board appear to have selected one of these "solitary spots" as a site for their two reservoirs. With regard to that point I should like to refer to the evidence given by the Chief Engineer to the Board (Mr. Bryan). I think I can make it quite clear that a long trench would have to be sunk for a very considerable depth in parts before London clay is reached, and it must be quite obvious if a trench of that kind has to be sunk to a very great depth, the subsoil water in the adjacent district will probably be drawn away. The Board themselves admit that they will have to indulge in pumping operations during the construction of the trench in question. With regard to the depth to which the trench will in all probability have to be sunk, Mr. Bryan gave the following evidence:—
  "Yon have got to 110 feet and not found London clay?—I will not say 110, but we have gone a considerable distance down.
  "Do yon think it is necessary for the safety of these reservoirs to carry your puddle wells and tooth them into the London clay?—Yes.
  "That will be pretty costly to construct?—It will only be for a short length.
  "And you will have to pump all that water out of the 110 feet above it?—Yes."
  Mr. Hunter, one of the experts employed by the Board, gave the following evidence:—
  "Have you left out (reservoirs) 6 and 7?—As to 6 and 7, at one part of the area there the clay is rather deep, but I think Mr. Bryan has had borings made at different places there. They would be a little bit expensive to make.
  "Yon heard the other day that he did not reach the London clay until 110 feet?—I think that was only for a short length. I cannot answer a question like that distinctly, because I have not had the whole thing bored to see how it is, but I know that in part of that reservoir it does go down deep."
  I quote that evidence to show that as a matter of fact the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stoke that it would be necessary only to construct a trench of some ten or twenty feet was erroneous.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: The hon. Member at least ought to be correct. Just after that I said that the average of these trenches,
  1228
  according to the evidence which I myself listened to, was between thirty and forty feet.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: I accept the hon. Member's correction, but I do not think I was misrepresenting him. This is the passage in his speech to which I was referring:—
  "….in excavating you can take it for granted that in the Thames Valley the average depth is twenty, or fifteen, or ten feet"
  I did not go beyond that. I said that the hon. Member suggested that in the Thames Valley you would not have to go to a greater depth than ten, fifteen, or twenty feet—the precise words which he used in his speech. However, that is not a point of great importance. I think it is generally agreed that you would have to sink a trench in the case of these particular reservoirs for a very considerable depth. What would be the effect of sinking a trench of this kind? We assert, and I do not think it will be disputed, that during the period of construction—that is to say, while the actual trench, which in the end is to form the wall of the new reservoir, is being sunk—the effect must be to drain the water from the soil in the adjacent area, and in all probability to destroy the supply where that supply is provided by wells of no very great depth, pools, and so on. Upon that point as to the effect of sinking this trench, Mr. Bryan gave the following evidence:—
  "I think you told my friend Mr. Hutchinson this morning that during the time your trenches are open through the gravel to the London clay you will have pumping machinery here?—Yes.
  "Is that liable to pump the water out of the surrounding gravel for a radius of some distance?—It is."
  I may also quote the evidence of Mr. Hunter on this point.
  Mr. STANIER: If the hon. Member will refer to the evidence he will find that this evidence was given, not in relation to the reservoirs that he is talking about, but in relation to reservoirs several miles away.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: I do not want in the least to misrepresent the case. Mr. Bryan's evidence did, I believe, refer to the other reservoirs, but the point which I wish to bring out is this: If you do sink these deep trenches in order to construct such reservoirs the effect must be to drain the water from the adjacent land. In regard to Mr. Hunter's evidence, which I am now about to quote, it was given in respect to these particular reservoirs. If I am incorrect in that assumption the hon. Member, who, I know, was on the Com-

  1229
  mittee, will be able to correct me, but I believe Mr. Hunter's evidence was given in respect of the reservoirs of which I am now speaking, that is Nos. 6 and 7. That evidence was as follows:—
  "When you constructed the Staines reservoirs you had a good deal of pumping to do in the trenches, had you not?—Yes, a good deal of pumping.
  "And that would drain the surrounding areas?—Quite.
  "You have heard of the depth of the clay and of the London clay from Mr. Bryan's evidence, and what I put to him?—Yes.
  "From your experience of Staines, would not a very large amount of pumping be necessary to keep the puddled trench in the lower corner——"
  That is to say the lower corner of No. 6 reservoir—I was quite certain that it referred to the lower corner of No. 6 reservoir—
  "dry?—No doubt.
  "Would not that affect the property within a very 3arge area from there?—Temporarily, yes.
  "As my client's property is within 100 yards of the puddled trench it would affect it seriously?—For a time, yes."
  Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, after carefully considering that evidence, I do not think it can be disputed that, in the opinion of people who are competent to express an opinion upon such a question, that sinking the deep trenches would have the effect of draining the land in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir. If we establish that point, I would like to point out to the Committee exactly what it is that we are asking, in asking the House to insert this proposed new Clause. All we are asking is that during the period of the construction of the reservoirs—it may not be long, perhaps three or four years altogether—a statutory right should be. given to the residents within a certain limited area in the vicinity of the reservoirs, who shall be affected by the pumping operations carried on in that construction to the payment of compensation from the Metropolitan Water Board for any injury that may be caused to them as a result of the destruction of their sources of water supply. I do not think that that is really a very large thing to ask.
  I remember quite well when this matter was under discussion in this House on the last occasion the chief arguments of hon. Members opposed to us were that it was very improbable that any of these sources of water supply would be affected. My answer to that is if that is so, then the proposed new Clause will be inoperative. Nobody will be any worse off. We maintain that not only is it possible, but that it is probable that some of these small occupiers who are living in the vicinity of
  1230
  the new reservoirs, market gardeners, and so on, will have their water supply affected. We say that it is only a matter of justice that compensation should be paid to them if they suffer injury. After all, it is the more necessary that we should insert a Clause in the Bill to the effect proposed, because, as is very well known in this House, there is no remedy in the courts. The courts do not recognise any property in underground water. Therefore, unless you insert a specific Clause in the Bill it is quite impossible that these injured men will receive any redress from the courts.
  It is, however, said that there is no precedent for inserting a Clause of this kind in a Bill of this kind. I very respectfully beg to differ from that assertion. I believe there are many precedents. I believe you will find in many Water Bills of this kind passed during recent years a similar Clause to that which we desire to insert. Let me take the case of the South Staffordshire Water Works Act, 1909. It seems to me to be very much a case in point. The particular Clause in that Act to which I would call the attention of the House is similar to what we wish to include in this Bill. I will read the important part of the Clause:—
  If any diminution has taken or shall take place in the water supply from any well, borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream or watering place which exist, or has existed, as an effective source of supply, at or since the date when pumping by the company first commenced, at any pumping station by this Act authorised or confirmed. …"
  And these are the important words, because this Clause is almost identical with a Clause we desire.
  Either during such construction (of such pumping station) for the purposes of supply."
  In our Clause we do not ask for compensation "after construction," as we realise quite well, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board pointed out on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter—though he seemed to think we were ignorant of the fact—we do realise quite well that these are only storage reservoirs. Once the reservoirs are constructed they are going to be supplied from the Thames. After they are constructed there is no possibility of their affecting the water supplies in the immediate neighbourhood of the reservoirs. It is only during the period of con-

  1231
  struction that I quoted the Staffordshire Act for, because it specifically provides there, if during the period of construction any well, borehole, pond, spring, and so on, are affected, then compensations will be payable. The Act goes on to say that if such diminution arises since the commencement of such pumping the undertakers shall afford the owner of the water supply an amount equal to such diminution at such cost or rate as that the total cost to the owner shall be the same. …" I suggest very respectfully that this very Act is a precedent for the action which we are taking in this particular case. As pointed out on the last occasion—and, of course, it really is a precedent, although the President of the Local Government Board denies it—in the present Bill itself there is a Clause which safeguards Lord Fitz-Hardinge. It says:—
  If at any time within two years from the date of the completion of Aqueduct No. 1 the water supply of the said Pink-well Farm shall, owing to the construction and maintenance of Aqueduct No. 1 be diminished to such an extent as to render necessary a new or additional supply of water for the purposes of the said farm, the Board shall supply free of cost such new or additional supply of water in such a manner as shall be agreed."
  I understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that this Clause was inserted really for compensation for property which had been acquired from Lord Fitz-Hardinge under the Bill. I do not think that can be so. As I read the Clause the compensation is for depriving him of the water supply which he possesses at the present moment. That is all we ask on behalf of the small owners in the vicinity of the reservoir. I would like, in conclusion, to make an appeal to the House. Surely this is a matter of justice and fair play, the Metropolitan Water Board is a great and powerful corporation. With the sanction of Parliament behind it, it goes down to a rural district in Middlesex to put up reservoirs which are to be used, not for the people in the neighbourhood, but for a population which is entirely distinct, namely, the population of London. In sinking these great reservoirs, this great corporation probably deprives temporarily, I admit, small owners and small tenants, market gardeners, and other people of that sort of the water supply which is absolutely essential for them. Yet
  1232
  they refuse to consider the possibility of making them a grant of compensation, which everyone admits would be small, for the injury which may be inflicted upon them. I put this matter before the House as a question of fairness and justice, and I hope the appeal I make will not be made in vain. I ask the Local Government Board in considering this question not to be swayed by mere technical or legal quibbles such as the absence of precedent, which I do not admit, but to do what is right on a question of this kind, and to do what it can to prevent the infliction of injustice.
  Mr. MILLS: I desire to second the Motion of my Noble Friend. It is difficult to understand why this great corporation should have set in motion all their powers in this House in order to defeat the Clause which we are anxious to introduce into this Bill. From the position which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and others have taken up towards this Clause, one might think that we were proposing something which would entail enormous expenditure upon the Water Board. We are proposing to do nothing of the sort. The amount of compensation we ask the Water Board to give to the people affected by their works is a very small amount, and, furthermore, the compensation will only be temporary. It will be necessary for the people who claim it to prove that they have sustained damage by the sinking of these drains, and therefore it seems to me that the opposition to the Clause which the Middlesex Members wish to insert is really rather in the nature of red tape. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I used on the last occasion that this matter was before the House. The main arguments by which we were met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by the hon. Member for Stoke were, first of all, that this damage would not occur. The hon. Member for Stoke explained he had a large experience, which I do not for a moment doubt, in the construction of reservoirs in the Thames Valley, and that it was quite impossible that these wells would be drained. If the hon. Member for Stoke knows better than the engineer for the Water Board—I do not say this in any impertinent sense; I certainly hope he does know more—and if he is right that there will be no depletion, then there will be no claim upon the Metropolitan Water Board. The onus of proof will rest upon the small holders who live round these reservoirs. It cannot be said that

  1233
  we were making an organised attempt to deprive the citizens of London of their water. We realise that the citizens of London want water, and in Middlesex we are patriotic enough not to insist on not having our district turned into a hideous place by these great walls which are being put up because it is for the interests of the people of London, but we say, as you are going to disfigure a large part of West Middlesex, you should do everything in your power to see that the people are not unnecessarily damaged.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite informed us there was no precedent for the action we desired to take. That does not seem to me to be a very conclusive argument. Further, he goes on to say, if we pass this Clause, we should be setting up a precedent which other people will make use of in an injurious manner. I think it speaks very badly for the House of Commons, if we are to be debarred from doing justice to one set of people because we may thereby set up a precedent by which more than justice or injustice might be done to other people. It is tantamount to admitting that the House of Commons is not competent or capable in other cases to decide whether people who desire a similar Clause in other Bills, have a just claim or not. I submit the question of precedent ought not to weigh for one moment with those who are opposing the insertion of this Clause. Then we were told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this depletion will not take place. My Noble Friend has read out the evidence of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Huntley. We admit that Mr. Bryan's evidence as to depletion was given in regard to reservoirs 2 and 3, now struck out, but this evidence applied with equal force to reservoirs 6 and 7, and we also desire to point out that Mr. Huntley, who bore out Mr. Bryan, gave his evidence explicitly in regard to numbers 6 and 7, and proved that there was to be a considerable depth in these parts, much deeper than the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit. Mr. Bryan was asked whether they had gone down 110 feet and not found London clay, and he admitted that they had gone down a considerable distance. I would point out these two facts. First of all, that these trenches which they proposed to build round the reservoirs will have to go down a considerable distance, and further, that the wells of the people of this neighbourhood, whose depth is only 10 or 15 feet, will be depleted. If the trench is only 30 feet deep and the surround-
  1234
  ing wells are on an average 10 feet there would be a depletion of water from the wells during the construction. The argument has been used by those who oppose this Clause that the Middlesex County Council, when this Bill was being discussed, did not sufficiently emphasise their desire for the insertion of this Clause. I should like to point out to the House that when they received this commission from Mr. Bryan, the engineer, he had made provision to remedy this defect in his estimate. He had made a contingent estimate, and Lord Newton, in the House of Lords, speaking with great experience as a past Chairman of similar Committees, gave a similar opinion and the Middlesex County Council naturally thought that this point was conceded, and that it would be wasting time to contest it further.
  It has been argued that the people who live round the neighbourhood of these reservoirs have not come forward and protested. May I point out that the people who live round the sites of these reservoirs are not millionaires. They live in my Constituency, and they have not the money to bring expensive petitions before this House or the Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke, when he opposed this Clause last week, said that we were really passing this Clause in the interests of small people, although we had at the back of our minds the desire to leave out the reservoirs altogether, so as not to spoil the pleasure of the wealthier classes who would eventually be spinning round these reservoirs in their motor cars. The fact that we are bringing forward this Clause shows that we are genuine in this respect. I admit that subsequently I shall urge the House to leave out two of these reservoirs, but now we are only asking the House to accept the Clause which will inflict very little expense upon the Metropolitan Water Board, and which will not in the slightest degree interfere with their plans for the supply of water. We are urging this Clause in the interests of people who, on the evidence of two experts, will probably be very seriously affected, and who have not got the means or the opportunity of urging their petition themselves before the proper authorities. For those reasons I hope the House will see its way to accept this Clause.
  Clause read the first time.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Mr. STANIER: I find myself in rather a difficult position, because during the three years I have been in this House I have, in some thirty or forty Bills, supported a Clause something similar to the one which has been proposed this evening. The curious thing to-night is that I am going to oppose this Clause. For a good many months during this year I had the honour of sitting on the Committee which went into this question, and we heard a great number of petitions, all of which were concerned with the supply of water to the local inhabitants. I was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Mills) that certain people were too poor to petition. I do not know whether that is a fact or not, but all I can say is that the district councils which represent those areas spoke up for those people and on their behalf in a very able way, and I can assure the House that those people's ideas were well put before the Committee. The Member for Hornsey told us of certain evidence that was given regarding reservoirs 1 and 2. I can assure him that the reservoirs he was really talking about, namely, 5, 6 and 7, are a very considerable distance from 1 and 2, and also the figuration of the land is absolutely different. It is rather a curious thing, but I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to another fact. I believe he was speaking on behalf of the Middlesex County Council, but if he will look into the records of the Committee he will find this extract in the cross-examination, on behalf of the promoters, of Mr. W. G. Graham, the witness for the Middlesex County Council, in support of the proposed Clause. An eminent Member of the Committee, who was the Patronage Secretary in this House not long ago (Lord Marchamley), asked the following question:—
  "As a matter of fact, has not ninety-five per cent. of the evidence given before the Committee gone to show that the level of saturation will be raised throughout the district by the construction of these reservoirs rather than lowered?"
  The answer given was as follows:—
  "The permanent effect might be that the subsoil water will he slightly raised."
  If it was slightly raised then it could not be lowered. I give that point because I think the whole thing bears on this particular question.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: Does that mean that the subsoil would be raised during construction or subsequently?
  Mr. STANIER: He says that the subsoil would be slightly raised. He also called attention to the fact that the depth
  1236
  of the trench would be considerable. This trench would have considerable effect on the surrounding districts. Those who are engineers or who have had anything to do with the making of great reservoirs will know that these trenches, which are dug out for putting in the puddle clay to make the core of the embankment, which must go from the depth of the embankment down to the clay below through any soil than can be perforated with water, and in this case it is the London clay, and it is well known that it has to go down in sections. In this particular case it will only be twenty or thirty yards. During the time that that work is going on naturally there will be operations to keep that trench free from water, because in this particular locality the district is on the top of the underground water that is flowing down the valley of the Thames. That is always a continuous flow of water, and, therefore, that trench will have to be kept clear of water while the puddle is being put in. Directly the engines stop and the puddle has been put in to the required depth, the water will flow on, and, according to the evidence that was offered upon the question by Lord Marchamley, the saturation would be raised rather than lowered. Therefore it will be a very temporary affair indeed, and, instead of it being as the hon. Member for Hornsey said from three to four years, I think it will be much nearer the mark to say from three to four weeks. I think it might be even less.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: The construction might be from three to four years.
  Mr. STANIER: The construction, I am informed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) would be less than from three to four weeks. It was because it was such a temporary affair that the whole thing was left in the position it was by the Committee after the most careful consideration. The hon. Member for Hornsey said—
  "What about the market gardens in that particular district being devoid of water for that time?"
  I have been a market gardener myself, and I am always watching matters on behalf of market gardeners and agriculturists, and I went over this district, and I failed to see any market gardens. I think the Members of the Committee who were with me will remember there was no market garden. The hon. Member for Hornsey also quoted the South Staffordshire water works. I happen to be a

  1237
  Staffordshire man myself, and I know the South Staffordshire area. It is rather a peculiar thing he should have pitched on that particular place and Bill. If he will go there, he will find it is a very strong permanent pumping station and not a temporary one. There is a well sunk down to a very low order, there are very strong pumps indeed, and out of that well there are branch adits to collect the water in the surrounding district. It is therefore not analogous to this case, and there should be in all great permanent station Bills clauses to safeguard the surrounding districts.
  9.0 P.M.
  We have also been asked why Lord Fitz-Hardinge, a rich man, gets compensation and why poor men in the district do not get compensation. Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm, when the whole scheme is completed, will have five 4-ft. diameter pipes through it, and these pipes, if I remember rightly, cross the stream which supplies the farm and certain of his houses, and will absolutely cut off the stream which is the supply for that district. It will not only do it temporarily but permanently, and the Committee, therefore, thought he ought to have compensation. In other cases they did not give compensation, because, to a very large extent it was only temporary. I also notice there were a good many other Bills quoted. There was the Midland Railway Bill and several more. There is not one of those Bills which can be compared with the present Bill. I would also like to answer the last speaker, who gave us the statement from the engineer's evidence that what referred to reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2 also referred to reservoirs 5, 6, and 7. That cannot be so, and in order to satisfy him I will read out a letter which has been put in my hands from Mr. Bryan himself, who is the gentleman he quoted:—
  "My evidence as to temporary supplies was solely with regard to any interference which might have been caused by the works to the inhabitants of Wraysbury. That evidence was given solely in reference to Nos. 1 and 2 reservoirs, and in reply really to the petitioners against those two reservoirs, and it could not possibly have any reference to anything beyond, as you will see from my cross-examination by Mr. Hutchinson"
  I will not weary the House by reading his whole letter. I will hand it to Members if they like to read it.
  "The evidence I gave re Nos. 1 and 2 re Wraysbury, ought not to be quoted as applying to Nos. 6 and 7."
  That, I think, completely shows that what we have done was done in a fair and honourable manner for the good of the district as a whole. We were also most
  1238
  careful to safeguard the interests of the smaller people. I should like to answer another point which was made in this House the last time the Bill was before it. A statement made by the Earl of Kin-tore in another place was quoted:—
  "We were not of ourselves prepared on a private Bill to take a new departure——"
  the departure of putting this Clause into the Bill—
  "involving such a large question of principle, so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, we decided as a Committee to take no action."
  Perhaps you can twist that round and make out it is a point in the favour of those who are advocating this Clause, but I can assure the House it was not, because at that time we had in our mind the Committee of which Lord MacDonnell is the Chairman, and which is going into that question. It referred to the question as a whole, and not as a part in this particular Bill, and also to the Committee as a whole. I think those in this House who were sitting with me will acknowledge my statement that the Committee thought they should not make a precedent which would in after years be quoted, but that as this Committee was in existence it should go into the matter and settle it. I hope that I have put clearly the two or three cases that have been mentioned. I can assure the House that the Committee who sat went into every question with the greatest care, and I hope the House will back them up and will carry the Bill through as we recommended it. I can assure the House that every one of the cases brought forward against the Bill will be found not to hold water.
  Mr. DAWES: The principal point in favour of this Amendment is the differentiation that is made by the Committee, or, rather, by the promoters in the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge as against that of certain hypothetical cottagers. But the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge is totally different from that of the cottagers. Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm is entirely detached; it is no less than three and a half miles away from the nearest point to one of the new reservoirs, so that under no circumstances will it be touched. But the water from his farm may be permanently taken away. In the case of the cottagers it is apparently admitted that the inconvenience is of a temporary nature. The great difference between the two cases is that Lord Fitz-Hardinge is to have compensation in water if his supply is interfered

  1239
  with. In that case the Metropolitan Water Board offer to give him an equivalent water supply. But the Noble Lord's Amendment is quite different, and I should like the House to understand the position in which the Metropolitan Water Board will be placed if this Clause should be carried. The Clause says nothing about water compensation, and, therefore, anyone, including a lessee, may make a written request to the Metropolitan Water Board for compensation if the water in his well is diminished. It does not even say, as far as I can make out, that the diminution is to be caused by the construction of the reservoir, and the result will be, as the Metropolitan Water Board have no power under this Bill, or under any Act, of seeing what the water levels are at the present minute, they will not have any opportunity of producing evidence to show what was the depth of water prior to the formation of the reservoir. Therefore I say these cases are quite different. It is interesting to see that in another place the Duke of Northumberland, who took up the cudgels for the Middlesex County Council, said it showed that the promoters were willing to consider the case of the big landlords, while they entirely ignored the position of the small owner. That is an interesting position for the Duke of Northumberland to take up, but it does not apply in the least. We had no evidence before the Committee that any damage would be caused to small owners: Precedents have been quoted. I understand that the South Staffordshire case has been quoted as a precedent for putting in a Clause of this sort. But the South Staffordshire case was essentially one of pumping, and I do not think that anyone in this House will suggest that, if it had not been for the undoubted permanent injury that might be done to the people near the works, compensation would have been given for a period during construction. All the cases that have been quoted are cases of a water company or waterworks sinking wells and pumping. There is not a single case where compensation has been given by Parliament for temporary disturbance during construction. The Select Committee was very largely influenced by Lord MacDonnell's Committee on the Water Supply Bill of a previous Session. This Committee said in their Report:—
  "We wish to repeat the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, contained in their third report of 1903, that a comprehensive inquiry
  1240
  into the whole subject of surface and underground water supply should be held before any legislative action is taken of the kind proposed in the Bill."
  The Select Committee, having that before them, did not think that they were justified in making a precedent in this case. The President of the Local Government Board told us he had taken steps to be advised on the whole matter of underground water, and the Committee thought that a Private Bill of this sort was not a proper place to insert a provision which would have the effect of practically altering the law of the land. That was the position taken up by the Select Committee. As to the suggestion of Lord Fitz-Hardinge having preference over anybody else, I would remind the House that it was an agreed Clause, and I would like to quote what Lord Haldane said on the point. The Noble Lord said:—
  "If the recommendation of the Committee which had the question fully before them were departed from we should be making a precedent and throwing the administration of this class of public business into a state of uncertainty which would make our later conditions worse than the conditions in which we now stand."
  The Select Committee came to the conclusion that the Bill as presented to this House was a proper Bill, and we hope, therefore, that the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord creating a precedent and altering the law of the land by a private Bill, which certainly would be a bad precedent, will not be carried.
  Mr. NEWMAN: As a Middlesex Member, I have great pleasure in supporting the Clause proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey. Although I must admit that, so far as my Constituency is concerned, our withers are unwrung. I have been asked by the Middlesex County Council to support my Noble Friend. I approached the question with an open mind, for I knew nothing about the facts. When the proposed Clause was first put into my hands I thought that surely the Metropolitan Water Board would accept so reasonable a Clause; but as it was opposed I naturally read up the evidence in order to ascertain the grounds for the opposition. What are one or two of the reasons advanced by the Metropolitan Water Board, or its advisers, for the non-acceptance of this Clause? First, they tell us that its terms are general. That is easy enough to say. Apparently they want some specific case of a small well being damaged. Surely that would be easy enough to get. I have motored through the district many times, and, when hon. Members say that small men do not live

  1241
  in that particular part of Middlesex, I dissent from that view. It is a place where small men do live, and I think it would be easy to get hold of a man who would come forward with evidence as to what occurred to his well when the reservoirs were created. It is admitted that their water supply will be temporarily interfered with. That is acknowledged, amongst others, by Mr. Huntley in his evidence. He says, "Reservoir No. 6 would cause depletion." That is all about it. It may be only temporary, but anyhow the damage will be done temporarily, and these men, whether great or small, will have their water supply tampered with at any rate temporarily, on the evidence of Mr. Huntley. The Water Board go on to say that this Clause recognises the right, unknown to general law, of ownership in underground water not flowing in defined channels. It may or it may not be so. It goes on to say that a comprehensive inquiry has been undertaken by a Committee presided over by Lord MacDonnell, and that that Committee has not yet reported. Of course, it will report at some period, probably the Greek kalends, but if you have to wait for this Committee to inquire before you have any water, surely you will have an injustice done you. It may report sooner or later, but meanwhile you are short of water.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Committee has reported.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I am merely stating what Lord MacDonnell said. They say, again, that the insertion of the Clause would give rise to numerous claims, probably in many cases unjustifiable, which it would be costly to resist. You would imagine from that that the Metropolitan Water Board were people with no money behind them, that they were people who felt compelled to fight for their lives against great and wealthy interests. Is that the case? I, as a matter of fact, pay every year a pretty large cheque to the Metropolitan Water Board, and I know that in the square in which I live there are one hundred other men who write an equally big cheque, and in that square the Metropolitan Water Board take from us a revenue well over £4,000 a year. How many thousand pounds a year is it going to cost them to compensate these few people, for probably only a few years, for the damage done to them by thus tampering with their water supply? Surely the
  1242
  right hon. Gentleman will not tell me it is anything like £4,000 a year. Surely out of their great wealth the Metropolitan Water Board could afford these comparatively few shillings to safeguard these small men from any possible damage which may be done to them by the construction of these reservoirs. It is the case of a wealthy corporation against a few comparatively small people who are appealing to their county council. It has been mentioned that those men did not appear in person. We know what happens on these Committees. We sit in comfortable chairs and go to sleep after lunch. At any rate we know how many days we have to sit. But the witnesses are kept in these stuffy rooms, perhaps for several days together, at great expense and inconvenience to themselves, and at the end of the time they are put in the witnesses' chair and badgered by counsel, and occasionally by ourselves. Is that a fair ordeal to ask small men to be put to? I say no. It is right for the county council to speak for these men and come forward, and through their representatives in this House put their case straight to the Local Government Board.
  There has been a question of precedents. I have looked into the question, and one precedent at once struck me. I recollect in the last Parliament I was on the Thames Water Works Bill. I was glad to be on the Bill, because I myself had been a graduate at Cambridge many years ago, and knew the country with which the Bill dealt. I remember being greatly struck at the care which was taken to protect any interest which might suffer diminution of water supply. I was particularly struck with the care we took that a certain village called Little Wilbraham should be protected. We were going to make big works to supply Cambridge town with water. Wilbraham was water-logged nearly all me year, yet here we were very careful that it should not in summer have its supply interfered with. We put in all sorts of Clauses to protect it. If that was done for Little Wilbraham, surely it might be done for the villages of Middlesex, which are not waterlogged, and which will want all the water they can possibly get in the next few years. Of course, if the damages was only going to be temporary, the compensation will be only temporary, and the cost to this great Water Board will be insignificant. I submit that we have made out our case. Really in this small matter the Water Board might meet us. I have heard the case put

  1243
  forward by my hon. Friend, and I heard the hon. Member for Shropshire speak. The only person I have not heard speak is the President of the Local Government Board. I should like to hear his impression of it so that I may make up my mind whether he or my hon. Friends are right.
  Colonel GREIG: I intervene with a somewhat impartial attitude, because I am neither a Member for Middlesex nor am I otherwise interested in the matter than as a ratepayer under the Water Board and a consumer of its water. I want to look at the question from a public point of view, and to get behind the principles that lie under this suggested Clause which the House is asked to adopt. It is put forward as being a reasonable Clause which should be inserted in this Bill. I think hon. Members are aware of the general principle of law dealing with this matter, and it can be only a matter where there is underground water percolating through subterraneous strata, because this Clause applies to an area of two miles from the point where the works are to be put. I am not aware of any suggestion having been made from first to last that there was any defined channel through which that water was flowing. So we are dealing here with the case of an undefined channel. The law, which has been in operation for years and years and years, and has been put in force and supported mainly by the landowners of the country, is that the owner of underground water with no certain or defined course or defined limit, has no natural right which would enable him to maintain an action against a great landowner who, in mining on his own land in the usual way, drains away the water from land and dries up his well. It has been stated in another case that no action will lie against a man who, by digging or cutting a drain in his own land, thereby drains his neighbour's land, either by intercepting the flow of water percolating through the pores of the soil and which, but for such digging or draining would have reached his neighbour's land, or by causing the water already collected in fact on his neighbour's soil to percolate away from and out of it. That principle was laid down in the case of Bradford v. Pickles. The Corporation of Bradford had waterworks from which they were pumping water for the City of Bradford. An adjoining landowner happened to have a piece of land alongside the waterworks, and for
  1244
  his own purposes—it is quite true that the corporation said there were malicious motives on his part—sank a pit in his own land, thereby interfering with the water which was flowing through the subterranean strata. They brought an action against this man, and they failed on the ground that the landowner was entitled to do what he liked on his own soil, and that it was absolutely immaterial what his motives were.
  If this was a right which that landowner could uphold against the corporation of Bradford, why should a great corporation, seeking to do what it is entitled to do on the land it has bought, pay compensation to a landowner two miles away. It has always been held in this country that there is a difference between water percolating in a defined channel on the surface of the soil and water which is flowing underground. And why? The reason is very evident. Lord Chief Justice Tyndal—and this is trite law—in his judgment, discussing why the law governing springs flowing in a natural course over the surface of the land should be different from the law relating to underground water, points out that there is no limit or space within which the claim of right to an underground stream can be defined, that in the case before the court the nearest coalpit was at a distance of half a mile from the well, and that it was obvious the law must equally apply to an interval of many miles. If you pass this Clause, you will have established that people two miles away from the works will have a right to compensation. This is not a Clause which should be adopted on any ground of public convenience. There is no opportunity under this Bill for the Water Board to examine what is the state of the wells in the district at present. Anyone who has had wells dried up by the drought might say, "You have commenced your works; my stream of water has been affected, and I claim compensation." I say that the principle which I have described is a good and sound one. It has been put in force in favour of landowners, and it is not in the interest of a public body who may more and more require to carry out works of this kind that people should come under the guise of small owners appealing to our sympathies to get compensation for doing the very thing which landowners have been held to be entitled to do, and rightly held to be entitled to do.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member (Colonel Greig) told us what is perfectly true, that there is no claim whatever

  1245
  to underground water. His law is perfectly correct, but that is the very reason why Parliament always takes care when large works are being authorised that the right of owners to underground water should be preserved. This Clause is inserted not in one Bill, but in practically every Bill which comes before this House relating to big engineering works, whether railway cuttings or water works. It is almost invariably put in by the House of Commons in order to make those undertakers pay compensation to the people whose rights are taken away.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman give any case where payment has been made for the temporary taking away of underground water?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I could give a scores of cases where this House has put in Clauses protecting the people whose rights are taken away. The speech of the hon. Member opposite (Colonel Greig) did not deal in any sense with temporary water. The hon. Member gave a very correct statement of the law dealing with the whole question of underground water, whether temporary or permanent. His speech applied quite as much to temporary as to permanent water. I think he referred to underground channels being cut. That is exactly what is going to be done under the provisions of the Bill. I do not want to trouble the House by reading a large number of Clauses in Private Bills. I have here the Clauses which have been inserted in several Bills. In the case of the Barry Docks, where a tunnel was being constructed, they were at the trouble of collecting the water and putting it in proper channels in order that those who would otherwise have that water should not be deprived of its use. There are scores of similar cases. The real opposition to this Clause has come from those gentlemen who were on the Committee and who are somewhat biassed in favour of their own decision. It is natural that they should be, and it is a praiseworthy feeling on their part that they have done what they deemed to be right; but, after all, if this House is to exist as a revising authority on its Committee, we have a right to question in all good faith the decisions of these Committees.
  I should like to comment upon what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Stanier). He is the Member who, if I am not mistaken, has caused more of these Clauses to be inserted in Bills than any other Member of the House. He
  1246
  is known to the Private Bill agents of London as the defender of the rights of agriculturists to underground water. He knows that agriculturists have no right-to underground water. Whenever he finds a Bill dealing with new engineering work, down goes a blocking Motion to that Bill, "That it be read upon this day six months." The promoters of the Bill go to him and say, "What is the matter? Why block the Bill?" He replies, "You will deprive the people of the underground water." I am told he is the author of 30 or 40 similar Clauses for the purpose of protecting agriculturists as regards underground water to which they have in law no right. I admire him for it, but I think when the people of Middlesex wish to have the right he has given to many other parts of the country he should support them. He referred to a question asked by Lord Marchamley, and he based his speech on a remark which the Noble Lord made that the effect of this would be to permanently raise the height of the water in these villages.
  That is not disputed. The whole question between us is as to the temporary abstraction of water during a period of three or four years, while the reservoirs are being constructed. My hon. Friend says three or four weeks. It may be that one portion of a wall may be constructed in three or four weeks, though personally I rather doubt that. The hon. Member has told us that the wall is going to be constructed with a deep trench down through the gravel to the London clay in lengths of thirty or forty yards. Therefore he says that it will not be a very serious matter while the pumping is going on. He read to us the evidence of Mr. Bryan, in which Mr. Bryan said that it was not fair to use evidence with regard to reservoir No. 5 in reference to what might happen in the case of reservoir No. 6. I am going to ask the House to take that evidence as evidence of a general character, applying their own commonsense to the question that if a trench dug down in a certain spot through the London clay, with pumping going on during the whole time of construction of that trench, will drain an area round about that trench, equally a trench dug through another area through similar soil with similar pumping going on, will drain a similar area. My hon. Friend, who is always fair in Debate, was good enough to pass over to me the letter which Mr. Bryan had written to him. I am afraid he cannot have read through the whole

  1247
  letter of which he has read some portions, for he says that Nos. 6 and 7 are in quite a different position, that the puddle trench is on the south side and only one or two properties may be affected.
  There is the admission by Mr. Bryan himself that one or two properties may be affected. If one property of the smallest man in the kingdom is affected he has the right to come to this House and ask for a Clause protecting him. He goes on to say that the pumping will be done in sections, a short distance apart, not of thirty or forty yards, but, roughly, 200 yards, and as soon as that length of puddle has been put in pumping will cease, and the process be repeated. I do not think that is quite the same thing as a small pump trench thirty or forty yards long. Their own engineer admits that the trenches will be 200 yards long and the pumping will suck up the water along the whole of this distance. Mr. Hunter, who was one of the engineers called by the promoters of the Bill, was asked a question about this very reservoir No. 6:—
  "When you constructed the Staines reservoir you had a great deal of pumping to do in the trench, had you not?—Yes, a great deal of pumping.
  "And that would drain the surrounding area?—Quite.
  "Yon have heard the depth of the London clay from Mr. Bryan's evidence?—Yes.
  "From your experience at Staines, would not a very large amount of pumping be necessary to keep the puddle trench in that lower corner dry?—No doubt.
  "Would not that affect property within a very large area from there?—Temporarily, yes.
  "If my client's property is within 100 yards of the puddle trench it would affect him seriously?—For the time, yes."
  I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, and have been assured that nearly the whole of that district is covered by market gardens and small holdings. I have made inquiries also from representatives of the Middlesex County Council, and they assure me that the whole of that district within two miles of this trench which will be drained by the pumping is covered by market gardens and small holdings. If that is so, and the trench would be not twenty or thirty but 200 yards long, as many of the wells are only ten or fifteen feet deep in that district they will be absolutely drained by this trench going down thirty or forty feet in order to get puddle into the London clay. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to Lord MacDonnell's Committee. Who would have thought, when Member after Member for Middlesex has spoken and we have been waiting to hear what defence the right
  1248
  hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) had to make, that he would have glued himself to that bench and made no defence? When he last spoke he told us he had appointed a small Department with a small expert at a small salary in order to investigate this question.
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I have not appointed a small Department with a small expert at a small salary. On the contrary, I have carried out the recommendations of the Committee of Lord MacDonnell, and I have appointed a geologist and a competent staff to make the inquiry which the Committee suggested I should undertake.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman is as usual correct. I apologise for having said he created a small Department. I will read his own words:
  "We have created a very small sub-department."
  I do not think he need have contradicted me when I said he created a small Department. He said in the Debate in this House a week ago:—
  "I have created a very small sub-department with a very small, competent staff."
  I think that my description, leaving out the "verys," was not so very far wrong with regard to the decision of the hon. Member. The Clause on this matter has been very unfairly described by hon. Members opposite. It gives the very least compensation which this House could possibly give to anybody who has been deprived of his rights in this matter. It does not give compensation unless damage has been done. Then damage has to be proved by the applicant for compensation. He has to prove in the first instance that the wording of this Act has caused a diminution in the water supply. It is not sufficient to say, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, "My well has gone down two inches during the hot weather." The hon. Member is imputing frauds to the villagers and small holders. They must prove that the diminution of the water supply has taken place owing to the working of this Act, and then they are not to get compensation unless they can prove that they had to go outside to get water for themselves. They can come and say, "My water supply has been diminished," or "my crops have failed, and I want compensation." They can only get it if they have gone and got outside water to keep their crops going, and it is only the bare cost of obtaining such additional supply that is to be given. The hon. Member

  1249
  concluded by saying that the Water Board would be entirely in the hands of these small owners. But the Clause states:—
  The owners shall afford the officers, servants, or other representatives of the Board, at all reasonable times, after the passing of this Act, access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this Section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein."
  An HON. MEMBER: That is after the claim is made.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think you would find these people would say, "If you are going to make a claim, we would like to go and measure your well." If a refusal took place, do you think an arbitrator is going to give damages? The last thing is the right of the county council to intervene in this matter. It has been acknowledged that county councils have a right to intervene in such matters, and they have the right to ask their members representing their counties to put the case of the small holders before this House. The small holders cannot afford the whole expense; all they can do is to call upon their representatives in the county councils, as has been done in this case. Do you think members representing county councils are taking the trouble on a hot night like this to get up this case merely for amusement? Do you think members of county councils do this for amusement? They do it because they have been put into operation by their constituents. We say we have a right, on behalf of the smallest man, to appeal to this House and see that justice is done him. I earnestly ask the House to insert this Clause. If there is no damage, no compensation will be paid. If damage is proved to any of these small holders, this House would be doing wrong if they refused to insert this Clause.
  Mr. BURNS: There are fortunately a larger number of hon. Members in this House at the present moment than there were at the commencement of the discussion. I avail myself of that advantage to tell those hon. Members, not formerly present, what the simple facts are at issue between the hon. Member, who has just sat down, and myself. First, we had a considerable Debate on subject matter not only of this Clause, but of other Amendments on the Paper. We had hoped it would have been possible for a decision to have been arrived at on this
  1250
  Bill sooner. But I am not complaining of hon. Members discharging their duty. This Bill has been before a Joint Committee of both Houses—a very strong and powerful Committee it was. That Committee sat for over three months; it heard all the objections, it heard all the evidence, and the particular Clause that it is now sought to incorporate in the Bill was rejected by the Committee.
  The Noble Lord, who was Chairman of that Committee, when the substance of the Clause was debated in the House of Lords, spoke against the incorporation of the Clause in the Bill, and by a two-to-one majority the Clause now moved, with other conditions, was rejected. Lord Kintore, the Noble Chairman of the Joint Committee, refused to sanction it, and spoke and voted against it. Lord MacDonnell, Chairman of the Select Committee that the Government set up to go into the matter of subterranean water supplies, not only spoke against the Clause, but voted with Lord Kintore against it. And it is more remarkable still that the three hon. Members of the Select Committee who sit in this House—two on one side and one on the other—have spoken strongly against the Clause which it is sought to embody in the Bill. What is more, is that Mr. Bryan, the engineer whose evidence has been twisted out of its application, has written a letter read by the hon. Member, who spoke with great authority and was a Member of the Committee. Mr. Bryan objected to general evidence being applied to this particular case, to which it does not apply. Mr. Hunter's evidence has no special application to the subject matter under present consideration. I was surprised the hon. Member below the Gangway should have said what he did to influence argument when he stated that this was "a number of small holders against a wealthy corporation." Wealthy corporations have a right to be protected when they are discharging a public duty. But this is not a wealthy corporation in the sense the hon. Member implies. It is true it paid £50,000,000 of money for the water companies, but last year it had a loss of £57,000, and it is not in a position to squander money. The hon. Member complained it was his duty to make out a big cheque for water. If the Board are not-protected against extravagances of this kind, his cheque will be larger and his duty more disagreeable.
  What is the simple fact? It is that hypothetical cottagers, who are reported to be losing hypothetical water, in market

  1251
  gardens or elsewhere, and who are not within the limits of the deviation of this particular reservoir which we are laying down, may, as a general rule, by securing this Amendment, claim that subterranean water, in regard to which they brought no evidence before the Committee, shall be treated by the Bill as subject for compensation in case of interference. If this Amendment were accepted it would provoke or lead to claims with which a body like the Metropolitan Water Board have no right to be hampered. For this and for other reasons this Clause ought not to be accepted. We are told to-night, as we have been told previously, that we are giving to Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation which we are denying to the small holders. I believe that even lords are entitled to their pound of flesh, that if they prove damage, if they bring evidence of it, there ought to be no difference as to compensation between either a peer or a commoner. But they have no right to bring Lord Fitz-Hardinge into this matter. He receives compensation, but he does not exact cash compensation; he asks for compensation in water in respect of the damage which his property sustains by the interference with the water supply on his estate, in order that the small holders may not suffer injury. What are the facts? A tremendous conduit, at least twenty-five feet wide and containing five iron pipes of four feet diameter, cuts through Lord Fitz-Hardinge's estate, and the water supply is diverted, while a well is destroyed.
  10.0 P.M.
  Lord Fitz-Hardinge very promptly asks for protection, and he went to the Water Board and pointed out to them that this conduit cuts right through his property, and runs close to it, and that they had no right to divert from the tenants on the estate the water supply which they had, nor had they a right to destroy the well. Lord Fitz-Hardinge proved the injury done to the water supply on his property, and it is thought right to give him an equivalent water supply. To say that this case is comparable to the hypothetical claim set up by the hon. Member for Middlesex on behalf of small owners is to compare the unlike with the like. I say that the evidence in favour of this Bill being passed to-night is overwhelming. The evidence against this Clause which it is sought to insert in the Bill is equally overpowering, and no case for compensation has been proved. No damage has been proved; yet the Water Board is asked to insert a Clause which will enable men who may not
  1252
  sustain damage to say to the Water Board "We want compensation." Such claims would involve needless expense to which no public body ought to be subjected. The supporters of this proposal were not able before the Select Committee, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons, to put forward a case which they could in any sense maintain. The London Water Board has imposed upon it by Parliament a very important duty, and they ought to be allowed to carry out that statutory duty of supplying water without being handicapped by irritating and obstructive Clauses of this character. They should be allowed to enter on their work. As President of the Local Government Board, taking an almost paternal interest in London and the surrounding districts, I now say that, as far as I can bring influence to bear upon this particular body, who have a task of great difficulty to perform, these works shall be carried out on the lines of least resistance, and that everything shall be done in order that conjectural sufferers may be able to continue their work with the least possible interference. Considering that I have the Royal Commission's report on underground water supply in my support, that I have the Select Committee on this Bill, and that I have Lord Kintore in the House of Lords, and three Members on both sides of the House on this Bill, I ask the House, in view of such overwhelming testimony, not to accept this Clause.
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: When this matter was before the House previously, I stated then there was a Clause in it for the protection of Lord Fitz-Hardinge, that the Clause ought not to stop there, but that the Clause which is now submitted should be inserted. That is exactly the position which I now hold. I have an Amendment on the Paper to delete that part of the Clause which gives to Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation for possible loss of water which might be due to these works. As that is not doing the Noble Lord any injustice, I speak now before the House has decided whether it will give to the Middlesex County Council the same protection that it is giving Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The right hon. Gentleman said that this had been before the Select Committee who have considered this matter for three months, and have decided upon it. I have no doubt that the Bill was before the Select Committee a long time, but this is

  1253
  just one of the matters which the Committee did not decide, and their Chairman distinctly said so. He said:—
  "We were not ourselves permitted in a private Bill to take this new departure involving so large a question of principle, and so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, we decided as a Committee to take no action."
  When the Chairman of the Committee states that he would not put this Clause in the Bill because they thought it was a matter to be decided by the House of Commons or the House of Lords, how the right hon. Gentleman can ask us to consider the matter closed I really do not understand. But the point I am particularly interested in is seeing that we deal fairly as between the people affected by these works. I am afraid a little prejudice has been imported into this matter, because of the jealousy between various public authorities. It may be that the Middlesex County Council are jealous of the Metropolitan Water Board, and I admit that there may be other grounds of opposition put forward by the Middlesex County Council to this Bill. One, for instance, is as to the two reservoirs, 6 and 7, and as to the particular location of those reservoirs. Possibly this Clause which we now ask to put into the Bill may be prejudiced by the fact that there were other matters which were urged by the Middlesex County Council against this Bill. The point I am anxious that the House should consider first of all is, has this Committee afforded Lord Fitz-Hardinge any protection which they are denying to the Middlesex County Council? Whether the people on whose behalf the county council are taking action are small holders if they are affected in the same way as Lord Fitz-Hardinge protection is claimed for them. The right hon. Gentleman twits us on the fact, but he told us himself that it was Lord Fitz-Hardinge's tenants who are being given protection, so that it is not a question of a Noble Lord versus the small holder, but Lord Fitz-Hardinge's tenants versus the people the Middlesex County Council are seeking to protect. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is quite clear in the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge that the damage has been caused or will be caused. I think that what the House has got to consider is on what evidence that is stated. No evidence was called on behalf of Lord Fitz-Hardinge for the same reason that no evidence was called on behalf of the Middlesex County Council because the experts of the Local Government Board admitted the mischief. We have been twitted with
  1254
  the fact that these people did not call witnesses, but no more did Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The engineer (Mr. Bryan) in the course of cross-examination was asked as to a well on Lord Fitz-Hardinge's property, and the cross-examination proceeded:—
  "You see that the aqueduct is going along that well?—Yes.
  "If the aqueduct, should in any way cause that well to dry up, would you be prepared to find some other means of supplying the farm?—Yes."
  So far as water is concerned there is an admission from the engineer of the Water Board that the carrying of an aqueduct within three or four hundred feet of this well might cause a loss of water. That is the only evidence on which they justify giving Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation for loss of water. "Oh," but says the right hon. Gentleman, "this great aqueduct is being run through, and it is obvious loss of water will take place," and he adds that the owner is content to be compensated by water, and not by money compensation. The promoters of the Bill very cleverly try now to whittle away the damage which those admissions from their point of view give rise to. The engineer says, admittedly in these particular reservoirs and the other reservoirs the scheme for pumping would go on and that it would deprive the neighbourhood of water. He also said that, left to himself, he would think it was right to make good the loss of water which might arise from those pumping operations in regard to reservoirs 1, 2, 3, or 4. We are told then that he did not say that there was loss of water in regard to the operations as to reservoirs Nos. 5 and 6 that ought to be made good, but what is the difference in principle? The consulting engineer (Mr. Hunter) was also examined. [The hon. Member quoted from the evidence.] Upon that evidence the Middlesex County Council did not call any witnesses. There was an admission from the experts of the promoters of the Bill that loss of water was possible, and in fact probable, exactly the same admission which was made by the engineer in regard to Lord Fitz-Hardinge. That admission as to Lord Fitz-Hardinge was that dragging this trench along might deplete the well on the farm. [An HON. MEMBER: "Permanently."] Yes, but the Clause says that he is to get compensation owing to construction as well as maintenance. I fail for the life of me to see what is the difference in principle, and why if you injure a man for four months owing to pumping operations he ought not to be compensated, but if you injure him for ten months or permanently

  1255
  then he has a right to compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said also that what is asked by the Middlesex County Council is cash compensation. Not at all. There is nothing in the Clause which demands money compensation. The Clause provides that the people have got to be compensated for loss of water. Anybody knowing anything about the Metropolitan Water Board knows that the moment this Clause goes in that it there is anybody likely to be deprived of water by reason of their works that they will take care to survey and examine it now, and if they are prepared to offer to those people a supply of water during the period when they are pumping then there is no loss and no compensation. I do think that if that is the only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to agree to compensation being given to the Noble Lord and not to these other men who happen for the moment to have the protection of the county council that it is not a sufficient ground. And, by the way, is there anybody more fitted to watch the interests not only of the owners, but in the interests of the health of the community and the water supply of that part of the county than the Middlesex County Council.
  In fact, it strengthens the position that it is a public body that comes forward, not in its own interest, with nothing to make out of it, and asks for this protection on behalf of these people. By means of this trench which is being cut through Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm permanent loss of water may result. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to say that it will result. One of the features of these operations is that no one is able to say beforehand what will result when you drive trenches of this sort at a great depth below the surface. It may be that Lord Fitz-Hardinge's loss will be only temporary. In any case I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has made a case for differentiating between Lord Fitz-Hardinge and his tenants and the Middlesex County Council and the people in whom they are interested. It seems that Lord Fitz-Hardinge has been sufficiently powerful to go to the promoters of the Bill and get an agreed Clause, because when the Duke of Northumberland in the House of Lords pleaded for the small holders as against Lord Fitz-Hardinge, and said, "Why is it that a Noble Lord gets this protection whereas the small occupiers do not get it? I will
  1256
  not be behind my fellow aldermen in pleading for equal treatment as between noble lords and small holders," the Chairman of the Committee admitted it was an agreed Clause, which meant that the Committee took no responsibility in regard to it. That is what this House is being asked to do. Personally, I think that Parliament is responsible for every Clause in the Bill, whether it is there by agreement or not; and if this Clause for protecting the people within the area of the Middlesex County Council is not put in, I am bound to press for the protection which the Committee have given to Lord Fitz-Hardinge being withdrawn from the Bill.
  Mr. BOYTON: I think the hon. Members for Middlesex may be congratulated on having put up a very good fight for what I think is a very bad cause. I hoped, after the speech of the President of the Local Government Board they might have seen the wisdom of not proceeding with the matter. I should not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones). I have read the papers connected with this matter, and when the hon. Member by a side issue tried to throw some discredit upon Lord Fitz-Hardinge for the Clause which he succeeded in getting inserted in the Bill——
  Mr. GLYN-JONES: I hope the hon. Member does not suggest that I cast any reflection on Lord Fitz-Hardinge. He has only done what the Middlesex County Council are trying to do.
  Mr. BOYTON: I am glad the hon. Member thinks that Lord Fitz-Hardinge only did what he is entitled to do, that is, to look after his tenants. Ho has a tenant of a particular farm, and I find the following in Mr. Bryan's evidence:—
  "Do you know that the only source of supply for that farm is one well?—Yes. I am told so.
  "Of a depth of from nine to ten feet?—Yes.
  "And you say an aqueduct is going along within some three or four hundred feet of that well?—That is so.
  "If the aqueduct should in any place cause the well to dry up, would yon be prepared to find some other supply for the farm?—Yes."
  This farm, with a well nine or ten feet deep, is quite a different case from that of the other reservoirs, and any temporary trouble there may be in the district. Surely, as Lord Fitz-Hardinge only did what was right in the interests of his tenants and in the interests of a trust—because he is only a tenant for life—I really think that no reflection should be cast upon Lord Fitz-Hardinge, or that the

  1257
  Duke of Northumberland should be set up against Lord Fitz-Hardinge. However, Lords need not be introduced at all into this question. It seems to me that the Committee have thoroughly thrashed out the matter with a view to doing justice all round, and Members having expressed an overwhelming weight of opinion against the Amendment, those responsible might discreetly withdraw it.
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott): I do not rise to take part in the discussion on the merits of this Clause, but really to appeal to the House to come to a decision on the matter. We have been for practically two hours discussing it. If anyone expects to learn anything more from any further speeches I do not. My own opinion is that we ought to support the Committee, and I beg the House to come to a decision.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has appealed to the House to come to a decision on the matter, and he doubted whether we had anything to learn from a discussion. As an Irish Member I have a great deal to learn from this discussion. What I chiefly learn from it is this: The Budget has been postponed until practically the middle of August. On the day when the Budget—the only opportunity that we have for raising important questions of over-taxation—is taken, the Government, by arrangements of their own, have put down a Bill of enormous magnitude. Do not let hon. Members for a moment imagine that I am minimising the importance of this great question which has been under discussion. On the contrary, I say it is a question from the point of view of Middlesex and of London which well deserves a long Debate; but it is upon this Budget day, and in order to close the mouths of hon. Members interested in finance——
  Mr. EMMOTT: I think I must explain that the Government are not responsible for putting this Bill down. I am responsible. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the other business of this week I do not think he will be able to suggest a better day to take it on.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quite accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is responsible, but why do the Government acknowledge that this Bill may be put down on the day that the
  1258
  Budget is put down for discussion? That is the point. I will not argue on the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I venture to make a suggestion by way of compromise. Nobody has a greater admiration for the way the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has shepherded London than I have. London is his parish. Nothing that concerns London is indifferent to him. Nor do I share the views put forward that Lord Fitz-Hardinge has got more than he deserves. But hon. Members in this House will remember what happened when the Bill concerning the St. Winifred's Well was under discussion. But I rose only for the purpose of suggesting this: It is said that these claims may be bogus. It is said that to some extent they are conjectural. In that I fully agree. But there is this further thing to be said. We are dealing with the unknown. When you are dealing with underground water no man can say what will be the result. If the water was going to be pumped in order to make the sections water-tight; if it was intended in any sense for drink of the community, I would not mind. It is not potable water; it is intended as structural work just as much as if it was intended to be put up in concrete or cement. Therefore you have got a case quite unlike any other case which has arisen, namely, the drying up of a large area of supply. Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board forgive me. He cannot have the interest in agriculture that some Members have; he cannot have the interest in the market gardens that he takes in streets, or if I may say so, slums. To attack the farmer's water is to attack his life and that is especially so in the case of market gardeners. Perhaps I might make a suggestion. It is said this Clause is too wide. I agree. The gentleman at the head of the Water Board was himself an hon. Member of this House, and he is a friend of mine. It was only because he wrote to me to support the Bill that I looked into the merits of the case and ascertained the facts. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would agree after the word "if" to insert the words, "in the opinion of the Local Government Board," or suppose he accepted another suggestion that no claim should be made which would harass the Water Board unless it had received, so to speak, the imprimatur or

  1259
  at all events the sanction of the Local Government Board. I do not think that is too much to ask. It is no use when dealing with a number of small farmers in the country to say they should come forward singly. There is the greatest county council in England which says these small men have some small title or claim for protection. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to have some consideration for the small men whose only means of irrigation for their farms may be sapped by the pumping for these trenches. They are going to go down forty, fifty, or it may be a hundred feet deep. Who can say that the supply of these small market gardeners is not going to be sapped and undermined. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Clause. I was first inclined to move the Adjournment of the Debate, ns it was brought on on Budget night. I will not do that, having regard to the appeal of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think the subject is entitled to some further consideration from the right hon. Gentleman than he has given us up to now.
  Mr. BURNS: It is only by leave of the House that I rise to respond to the appeal made to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He spoke as if the pumping to which he referred was to be pumping permanently conducted in this particular place.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: For two years!
  Mr. BURNS: And that it would interfere with the water supply. It is only to be temporary, and it is to be confined to trench work. It is very doubtful whether any loss will be sustained by the people to whom he so sympathetically referred. I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I can do no more than say that any influence I can bring to bear to ensure that this possible risk of dreadful loss is not sustained by those people will be exercised by me.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I think the Chairman of Ways and Means knows I shall not lightly go against his appeal after what he has said. I shall not say any- thing upon the details of the various questions involved. There is one point of principle which was used as a strong argument by the right hon. Gentleman against which I must make a vigorous protest. The right hon. Gentleman said, as one of his reasons for resisting this Clause, that the small people on whose behalf the Middlesex County Council spoke, did not appear or prove their case before the Committee. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be so retrograde when the House of Commons has, during the last five years, been taking strong steps to protect small people in these matters affecting water supply. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that reason. I do not say that he has not made good his case, but this House has shown repeatedly that it attaches great importance to the right to intervene in the interests of small people who cannot afford to be represented in order to prove their case before the Committees on Private Bills. It is essential that the interests of these people, and especially the interests of agricultural communities, should be protected in regard lo their water supply. In spite of the appeal made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I felt bound to enter this protest, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the fact that he has used this argument against a particular class to influence him or the House of Commons in any future debate which may arise on the question of the supply of underground water.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 222.

  Division No. 315.]

  AYES.

  [10.35 p.m.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Bridgaman, W. Clive

  Crean, Eugene

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, J. G.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Balcarres Lord

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cassel, Felix

  Fell, Arthur

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Cave, George

  Fleming, Valentine

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Barnston, H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gilhooly, James

  Bigland, Alfred

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Bird, Alfred

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Goldman, C. S

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Brassey, H Leonard Campbell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Morrison-Boll, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Mount, William Arthur

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Guiney, P.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Henderson, Major H.(Berks, Abingdon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hohler, G. F.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Wolmor, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'i, Walton)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stewart, Gershem

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl

  Martin, J.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  of Ronaldshay and Mr. Mills

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Adamson, William

  Falconer, J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cunib'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Logan, John William

  Armitage, R.

  Field, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Lundon, T.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lynch, A. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Furness, Stephen

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Barnes, George N.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Barran, Sir J (Hawick)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  McGhee, Richard

  Barton, A. W.

  Gibson, Sir James P.

  Maclean, Donald

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Glanville, Harold James

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Bentham, George J.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Boyton, James

  Guiland, John W.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Brace, William

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Brigg, Sir John

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hancock, John George

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Carr Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Muldoon, John

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Munro, Robert

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  Neilson, Francis

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Crooks, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Dowd, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Johnson, W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Delany, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Doris, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Keating, M.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Kelly, Edward

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  1262

  1263

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Webb, H.

  Robertson, John H. (Tyneside)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Tennant, Harold John

  Younger, Sir George

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Stanier and Mr. Dawes.

  Scanian, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mr. MILLS: I beg to move, in Clause 5 [Power to make Waterworks] to leave out the following paragraphs:—
  A storage reservoir (Reservoir No. 6) partly in the Parish of Laleham and partly in the Parish of Littleton situate between the existing aqueduct of the Board on the north and the road leading from Ashford to Laleham on the west and adjoining on the eastern side the Reservoir No. 7 by this Act authorised and hereinafter described;
  A storage reservoir (Reservoir No. 7), partly in the said Parish of Littleton partly in the Parish of Shepperton and partly in the Parish of Sunbury situate between the existing aqueduct of the Board on the north Charlton road on the east and the road leading to Ashford from the road between Littleton and Ashford Common on the north-east and adjoining on the western side the Reservoir No. 6 by this Act authorised;
  In moving the omission of these two reservoirs, we do not desire that London should be deprived of its water, but we submit that the site of these reservoirs has been chosen in a most unfortunate position, and we argue that if it can be proved that it is not absolutely necessary that these reservoirs should be built at once there is a very good case for asking the House to delete them and make the Water Board construct them at a more suitable place. It is estimated by the Water Board that by the year 1921 they will want 9,886,000,000 gallons of water, while with the reservoirs now in course of construction by the year 1917 they will have 8,800,000,000 gallons of water; therefore, even on the estimate of the Water Board, there is no reason why the construction of these particular reservoirs should be started at once. It is quite easy to show that the site of these proposed reservoirs is a most unfortunate one. From a party point of view, I should rather desire that the reservoirs be made, as the
  1264
  outside wall of one comes within about 250 yards of the gate of my opponent's residence. Therefore, I have this satisfaction of knowing that if the reservoirs are constructed the amenities of my opponent's house will be completely destroyed and he will no doubt feel compelled to leave the district. But in spite of that I have come to the conclusion that the damage that these reservoirs will inflict on the community is so large that I ask the House to cause the Water Board to have them deleted. I confidently appeal to Members of the Committee who made a personal survey of the locality whether the 600 acres on which they propose to construct these two reservoir are not quite the prettiest part within a radius of some five miles. The Water Beard could not by any conceivable means have chosen a worse place in which to construct these two reservoirs, especially as there is land near by which has not got the same amenities and does not offer the same attractions for the development of building. We do not wish to defraud London of water. We are quite willing, if necessary, that West Middlesex should be the dumping ground for these reservoirs, but we ask that they should be put in places where they will not entirely destroy a very valuable piece of ground and also entirely destroy the amenities of that part of the country. In addition to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the æsthetic objections to the Bill there is also the more material objection that several main roads, in fact the principal thoroughfares leading from Hounslow to the Chertsey district, are deflected by these two reservoirs, and their construction in this position will cause a great deal of inconvenience to the inhabitants of the locality.
  EARL of RONALDSHAY: I beg to second the Amendment. It is not in the least necessary in the interest of the water supply of London that these two (particular reservoirs shall be constructed or that any other reservoir except No. 5

  1265
  should be constructed at the present time. The Water Board came and asked Parliament for powers to construct an enormous number of reservoirs which they do not in the least require. One of these they gave up themselves, and three others were cut out by the Committee, and they now have only three of their originally desired reservoirs left, and if they can afford to drop Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 they can drop Nos. 5 and 6 as well. The construction of these two reservoirs will necessitate the diversion of certain roads and footpaths and the River Ash and other streams. That is a matter of considerable inconvenience to inhabitants of the locality. There is a very important piece of evidence given by Mr. Bryan, the engineer of the Board with regard to these two reservoirs after the other reservoirs had been cut out by the Committee. He stated, in answer to a question put to him by Lord Kintore, the Chairman of the Committee, that if reservoirs Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were disallowed by the Board he would have to see earlier to the construction of reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7, but he added:—
  "I. think I should advise the Board to go to Parliament again to get more reservoirs in the neighbourhood of 4 and 5."
  He also stated that the making of Nos. 6 and 7 reservoirs would alter the whole scheme of getting sufficient wafer from the Thames. In that evidence the engineer clearly showed that if reservoirs Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were disallowed by the Committee, it would be desirable, in his opinion, that the Board should not proceed with the construction of Nos. 6 and 7, but should come to Parliament again suggesting the construction of reservoirs in the vicinity of the existing reservoirs Nos. 4 and 5. We have no objection whatever to that. We consider that it would be far more suitable that the reservoirs should be constructed in the vicinity of the existing Nos. 4 and 5 rather than that they should embark on their construction at the places proposed. I wish to refer to another piece of evidence. The Chairman, addressing the engineer of the board, said, "But surely there will be separate filter beds for 6 and 7—will there not?" Mr. Bryan's answer was, "No." Under these circumstances and in view of the immense inconvenience which will be caused to the residents in that particular part of Middlesex in which it is proposed to construct reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7, and in view of the fact that, on the evidence of the engineer of the board himself that
  1266
  it would be more desirable that they should apply to Parliament again for powers to construct the reservoirs in the vicinity of the existing reservoirs, I think it is desirable that we should omit this particular Clause from the Bill. I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Mr. BURNS: The Bill originally contained proposals for eight reservoirs. The Committee struck out Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the Water Board withdrew No. 8. If this Amendment were carried there would be only one reservoir. I appeal to the House not to kill the Bill and waste the enormous sum of money which has been expended by the Water Board in fulfilment of a public duty.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman now supports the Water Board who have brought before Parliament a totally improper scheme. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech half-an-hour ago was a glorification of the Select Committee that sat on the Bill. The whole of his argument against the last Amendment was that the Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons had gone thoroughly into the Bill and that the decision of the Committee was right. It was the Committee that knocked out reservoirs Nos. 1. 2, 3, and 4.
  Mr. BURNS: I said so.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: They were knocked out by the Committee whose decision he applauded. Therefore we must assume that Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were improperly put in by the promoters of the Bill. No. 8 was withdrawn by the promoters, so that it also should never have been in the Bill. Therefore we have got five-eighths of the Bill on a bad foundation. As regards Nos. 6 and 7, there is a very simple reason for this opposition by people who are going to be detrimentally affected. The county counil of Middlesex and the guardians of Middlesex ask us to come here to ask the House to omit these reservoirs. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word as to the statement by Mr. Bryan, referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Hornsey, that if Nos. 1, 2. and 3 were disallowed he would advise the Board to omit 6 and 7 and go to Parliament next year for a better scheme. What is that better scheme? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) told us that the last ocasion that he has worked in the Thames Valley, and knows the

  1267
  whole system of the Metropolitan Water Works. It is known that there has been, so to speak, a concentration of reservoirs in the Staines district. It is one which is admirably suited for reservoirs. The inhabitants do not object to the reservoirs being dumped down there. There is a complete arrangement of filter beds at Staines and there is available ground for working these additional reservoirs. If this House agrees to the excision of reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7 it would be perfectly open to the Water Board next year, according to the advice of their own engineer, to come here and ask for a scheme
  to put the new reservoirs at Staines, where they will have the filter beds close at hand.
  Mr. BURNS Mr. BURNS rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I assent to this Motion, bearing in mind that the matter was very fully discussed about a week ago on the Motion of the Chairman of Committees.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 101.

  Division No. 316.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Adamson, William

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Armitage, Robert

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Logan, John William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, T.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Falconer, J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  McGhee, Richard

  Barnes, George N.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Maclean, Donald

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Barton, William

  Field, William

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)

  Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Geider, Sir William Alfred

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Bruce, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Martin, J.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Bryce, John Annan

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Guiland, John William

  Muldoon, John

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, R.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hackett, John

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hancock, John George

  Neilson, Francis

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Clough, William

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  O'Dowd, John

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Hayden, John Fatrick

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cotton, William Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Johnson, W.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Delany, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Doris, W.

  Keating, Matthew

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kelly, Edward

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sheehy, David

  Wadsworth, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Robinson, Sidney

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Webb, H.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Taylor, John w. (Durham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Phlips

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones, and Mr. G. Howard.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  NOES.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fleming, Valentine

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barnston, Harry

  Greene, W. R.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Healy, Maurico (Cork)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bigland, Alfred

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bird, A.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Horner, A. L.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cave, George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Clyde, J. Avon

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Neville Reginald J. N.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fell, Arthur

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Mills and Earl of Ronaldshay.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 88.

  Division No. 317.]

  AYES.

  [11.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Boyton, J.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Adamson, William

  Brace, William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Brigg, Sir John

  Crooks, William

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Armitage, Robert

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Byies, Sir William Pollard

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Cassel, Felix

  Delany, William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Barnes, G. N.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Dillon, John

  Barry, Redmond John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Doris, William

  Barton, W.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Clynes, J. R.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Reddy, M.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rendail, Athelstan

  Falconer, J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawson, Sir. W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Logan, John William

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Field, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  McGhee, Richard

  Roche, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Maclean, Donald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Furness, Stephen

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Glanville, H. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  M'Laren, Henry Duncan (Leics.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sheehy, David

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Martin, Hon. J.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Gulland, John W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hackett, J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Muldoon, John

  Sutton, John E.

  Hancock, John George

  Munro, R.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Neilson, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wadsworth, J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Webb, H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Johnson, W.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Younger, Sir George

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Radford, G. H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Keating, M.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  E. Cornwall and Mr. Stanier.

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hohler, G. F.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Horner, A. L.

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

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

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Barnston, Harry

  Fell, Arthur

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Fleming, Valentine

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gilhooly, James

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Bird, A.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Guiney, P.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  Pollock, E. M.

  Cave, George

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  1272

  1273

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Touche, George Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mills and Earl of Ronaldshay.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  And it being Eleven of the clock, further consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).

FINANCE BILL.
Postponed proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Question again put. Debate resumed.
Mr. DAVID MASON: Before I refer to the Finance Bill proper may I refer to a remark made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In the first place I should like to refer to his manner of treating the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), and then my own interruption. What are the facts? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was speaking about the fall of gilt-edged securities, stated that there was no question but that the Trustee Act was the main cause for that fall. He certainly said it was one of the main causes, if not the main cause, in the depreciation of our credit and the fall in the price of gilt-edged securities. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was only a limited amount of cash in the country, and that if you increased the field of securities you naturally would be bound to bring about a depreciation in all these securities. My interruption was to the effect that, though that was quite true, instead of depleting the amount of cash by the transference of your investment from, say, Consols to Colonial securities, you did otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman immediately attacked me as disputing his statement that the Trustee Act was the main cause for this depreciation.
I think the House will agree with me that that was entirely unjustifiable on his part, and that my interruption was a perfectly justifiable one. If, for example, a man owns securities that are not gilt-edged, such as Harrod's Stores, and he sells those and buys Colonials or Consols, the
1274
cash, of course, which he obtains from his sale of those securities which are not within the Trustee Act still remains in the country. In turn, when he purchases other securities, such as Colonials or Consols, he transfers his cash to the holders of those securities. I venture to say that although the Trustee Act has undoubtedly had some effect that effect has been very much exaggerated indeed. The right hon. Gentleman himself has again and again enlarged upon this far-reaching effect of the Trustee Act. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of finance of that kind knows that although it is quite true it has enlarged the field for the investment of loanable capital which filters from one source to another everyone can tell for himself, if he makes research and compares the difference in prices between Colonial securities and Consols prior to the Trustee Act and since the Act has been at work, there has not been a great deal of difference in the proportion. This question of finance is a most important one; the question of our credit goes to the root of all our reform and national defence.
The effect of the Trustee Act has not been anything like what the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. I find, for example, that one security alone, Canadian Three and a Half per Cents., was actually higher prior to the Trustee Act than it is to-day. It is only fair, and I desire to be fair, to state that that particular security is liable to be redeemed at par and is not likely therefore to move much up or down, but the fact that it was higher prior to the Trustee Act and is now selling at 101 indicates that the Trustee Act had not a very great effect upon the price of that security; and the proportion, which is after all the effect of the Trustee Act on the price of Colonial security compared with a gilt-edge security such as Consols, is not, I think, a very large one.
I hope that disposes of what has been almost the main contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that that is the chief cause of the fall we are now experiencing. Whatever else may be reason there is no

1275
question that the fall in British capital is largely due to our national expenditure. There is no getting away from that fact. Anyone is bound to admit it. Whether we are in favour of social reform, as I am, and of proper and adequate defence, still the fact remains we have enormous expenditure on armaments and an ever-increasing expenditure on social reform, and money does not drop like manna from Heaven. These laws are inexorable, and if you spend your money, whether you spend it on armaments or social reform, you have not got it, and if your expenditure of an unreproductive nature is greatly out of proportion to the amount you get from the people in the way of taxation one thing or another must give way. There must be adjustment, and if you increase your expenditure to such an extent as we have in the last four or five years, and throw a very heavy drain upon your loanable capital, gilt-edge securities are bound to fall, and to fall not only in this country but in all other countries. Although there are various kinds of credit, and although in Russia and other countries there has been some depreciation or rise and fall in credit, still I think it will be found that the price of gilt-edge securities the world over have fallen very materially in the last ten years. That I think can be directly traced in a large measure to the policy of this country. Take, for example, our expenditure upon armaments, which was largely stimulated through the blundering policy of the Admiralty. We are all in favour of an adequate expenditure upon armaments, but we do not wish to be let in for an expenditure which is not justifiable. The House will remember how the. First Lord of the Admiralty had to admit, on the evidence supplied in this House, that he had——
Captain MURRAY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask if the hon. Member is entitled to go so deeply into the question of armaments?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go so deeply into these questions, and he should confine himself to the Bill we are now discussing.
Mr. DAVID MASON: My point was that through that blundering policy this House authorised expenditure which we should not otherwise have been let in for. That policy also created an excess of expenditure in other countries like Germany
1276
and Austria, and the result of that expenditure is that you deplete and reduce the loanable capital available throughout the world, and if you do that you must affect your credit. The fall in gilt-edged securities, which has been touched upon tonight in the address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, has been partially brought about through the policy of His Majesty's Government. The argument that Consols have only fallen 9 points since the Liberal Government took office, as against 18 points when the Conservatives were in office, is quite beside the point. Our credit was depreciated when the Conservatives were in office because we were engaged in a great war, and, in addition to that, war loans have brought down the price of Consols and affected our credit.
Other parts of the world have also experienced great wars. Finance has an international effect. If you have wars like those between Japan and Russia, or between Spain and America, the loan capital used must have an economic effect, because wars are a waste and they are not reproductive. Wars reduce the amount of capital available for industry, and if you use your loanable capital in other parts of the world it is bound to have an effect upon your credit and your finance. There is no getting away from these fundamental facts, which lie at the foundation of all credit. I should like to refer to some remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in introducing his Budget. I say, frankly, that in many ways I distrust his finance because by his speeches he indicates that he does not understand the principles underlying his proposals. He has twice made the remarkable assertion when introducing his Budget about the output of gold, and he has enlarged on the enormous benefit which an abnormal output of gold has been to the world. His actual words in a speech delivered on 16th May this year was to the following effect:—
"Even in the United States of America the prospects are better than they were. There is in addition to that a great output of gold."
Those who have given any study to finance, while agreeing that a larger output of gold is of service and a necessity for the credit of the world, admit that an abnormal increase in the output of gold is not a benefit. On the contrary—I apologise to the House forgoing into such abstruse subjects—it is necessary to tackle these problems, especi-

1277
ally when the Chancellor of the Exchequer enlarges on these advantages. He has spoken of the rise in prices. Here is one of the principal contributing causes for the rise in the price of commodities which leads to unrest in the labour world, because the labourer, whose wages are more or less stationary, if you decrease the purchasing power of those wages for a variety of causes you undoubtedly make it harder for him to live. He wonders how it is that with all this prosperity around him his state is not so good because of the decrease in the purchasing power of his wages. Let me give one small quotation from Bastiat, one of the ablest French economists, who laid down this proposition with regard to the large increase in the production of gold which took place at the time of the discovery of gold in California. It is only right to state that the discovery recently in South Africa far exceeded that in California. He said:—
"I do not believe that, on the whole, the treasures discovered in California will add much to the enjoyments, to the real satisfactions, of mankind. If the Californian gold merely replaces in the world that which has been lost and destroyed, it may have its use. If it increases the amount of cash, it will depreciate it. The gold diggers (or rather mine owners) will be richer than they would have been without it. But those in whose possession the gold is at the moment of its depreciation will obtain a smaller gratification for the same amount."
That is to say, if there is an abnormal increase, as there has been in South Africa, in the supply of gold it undoubtedly tends to raise the price of commodities and affects very harshly those who are in receipt of a daily wage. Then Bastiat goes on to say:—
"I cannot look upon this as an increase, but as a displacement of true riches, as I have defined them."
I only mention that to show that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement such as I have quoted in his speeches he really gives one the impression that he does not understand the principles of political economy. He ought to regulate his finances according to his credit and to the loanable capital available at the time. Although we are all strong social reformers, we have, to use a homely phrase, to cut our coat according to our cloth, and we must have regard, therefore, to our finances. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London to-night asked what position we should be in if in the present state of our credit we were compelled to go into the market to raise £100,000,000 on Con sols, and he added that we should probably see Consols at 50. I submit that
1278
this question of our credit is a supreme question. It is the question which lies at the very root of all reform, at the very basis of our material and commercial prosperity. The position to-day is somewhat similar to what took place after the Crimean War. We then had, as we are apt to have after a war, excessive expenditure. We then had Mr. Disraeli in this House and Mr. Gladstone attacking Lord Palmerston, the Liberal Prime Minister, on this very same ground of expenditure. These two gentlemen were pleading for economy:—one a great Conservative and the other a great Liberal; they were pleading for the same reason as many of us are pleading to-day.
You must have regard to your liabilities. You must face the position as practical business men. The economic laws are inexorable. If you spend beyond what you are entitled to spend you are bound to suffer and to undermine particularly the position of the wage earners of the country. I do not know if it is again necessary to remind hon. Members of the enormous increase in our expenditure. I have referred to the increase in our Navy Estimates and in our Civil Services Estimates, but I would like to call attention to a very interesting Return issued only the other day with regard to the enormous increase in the number of salaried positions in the country during the last four years. Mr. Gladstone on one occasion wrote a very long memorandum to Lord Palmerston in order to point out that a post held by a clerk who had died was really unnecessary and that the country might be saved a paltry £200 or £300 a year if it were not filled up. Imagine a great financier and a future great Prime Minister spending the time to write an exceptionally long memorandum to Lord Palmerston simply in order to save so small an amount! But it was not the amount; it was the principle that was involved; it was the necessity for economy in the public service that Mr. Gladstone had in view on the question of credit, and we must face the real facts; it is of no use hiding our heads in the sand; we must not deceive either ourselves or the public; we must not try to make things appear otherwise than they are.
I should like to point out with reference to this Return that in one Department alone in the number of Civil servants in receipt of salaries ranging from £150 to £500 a year—posts, say, with an average of £300 a year salary attached—there have been

1279
660 added in the last four years, representing an increased charge to the revenue of over £180,000 a year. Then, again, with the number of posts not exceeding £150 a year and those exceeding £500 a year, the total increase in the number of Civil servants added on account of recent legislation has been 1,161 permanent and 3,130 temporary. Of course, we recognise that if you have legislation, such as the Shops Bill, the Coal Mines Bill and the Insurance Bill, entailing an additional number of public servants to carry them out, you must face the difficulty, but I wish to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of cutting down the number of public servants instead of increasing it.
Mr. DENMAN: Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the estimates of the different Departments?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be referring to the affairs of the country generally. I hope he may be merciful to the House.
Mr. D. MASON: I am sorry if, in my zeal for economy, I have gone somewhat beyond the limits of the Bill. I will endeavour to cut my remarks on this subject short. I rather agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that the particular policy in paragraph (5), Clause 8, of taking money from the old Sinking Fund for the Development Fund, for sanatoria, and for loans granted to the East African Protectorate, is based on a vicious and unsound system. These reforms, of course, are very admirable in themselves, but undoubtedly all surpluses should go to the reduction of debt, and if we indulge, as I hope we shall, in these admirable reforms, such as sanatoria, we ought to face the expenditure and pay as we go. After all the reduction of debt is a most important principle. One of the first duties of any business man or of any nation is to reduce its liabilities. The country would welcome any party which would again present those questions which the Conservative party presented in the days of its highest fame, namely, that of conserving the resources of the country, reducing debt and taxes. But if we find to-day that party drawn off into the bypaths of Tariff Reform, we who are anxious to see a real Conservative party inspired with that old economic idea can only despair. I hope Conservatism will again recognise that it is better to leave things
1280
alone. I believe the great mass of the people in time will come to recognise and give whole-hearted support to the policy of husbanding our resources, reducing our taxes, increasing our Sinking Fund and improving the credit of the country.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: It is a very striking comment on the manner in which the present Government treat the financial affairs of the country that they should ask the House to read the Finance Bill a second time on the 9th August, incidentally the hottest day of the year, on a day when three hours of the time of the House have been consumed on the discussion of a private Bill. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the actual surplus last year amounted to £5,607,000, and if all arrears had been cleared off that total would be £8,500,000. He told us also that this total of £5,500,000 was made up partially from savings on expenditure amounting to £1,238,000, and the rest arose from excess over estimates. From what sources is this total of £1,500,000 derived from savings over expenditure? I imagine these savings accrued from certain public Departments having sent in estimates which were unnecessarily large, and I think it is a rather striking comment on the supervision of the Treasury that they did not exercise sufficient care in examining the details of the estimates to allow these various public departments to send in estimates amounting to £1,500,000 over the sum they actually required.
I would also draw attention to the fact that this surplus ought really to have been very much larger than it actually was because certain instructions were sent out to various railway companies at the end of March asking them to defer payment of income tax until the first week in April. That had the effect of transferring between £500,000 and £600,000 into the balance of this current year, instead of placing it where it ought to be as a realised estimate of last year. To that amount the Government have defrauded the old Sinking Fund of a sum which undoubtedly ought to have been placed to the redemption of debt. A realised surplus of this kind should be devoted to the repayment of debt, but the right hon. Gentlemen who were so punctilious about the redemption of debt when in Opposition have adopted a rather extraordinary course this year in taking in the first place £1.500.000 out of the old Sinking Fund and voting it for the purpose of sanatoria.

1281
When in Opposition the Members of the Government criticised rather severely any proposal of the Unionist Government to spend any capital sums on the erection of barracks for the Army or on various naval works. All these various military and naval works were specially provided with their own sinking funds, and certain sums are devoted every year not only for the payment of interest but for the payment of the capital sums, thereby ensuring that these loans will be paid off in a certain number of years. Now we have a financially pure-minded Government taking away £1,500,000 which ought to have been devoted to the redemption of debt and spending it in a lump sum on the building of sanatoria. I fail to see the merit of a system of finance which devotes a large capital sum to the building of sanatoria without making any arrangement for paying off that sum in a certain number of years. I think it is very wrong to proceed with the building of these sanatoria out of capital. I am one of those who believe that if you spend a large sum of money on valuable sanatoria, it is conceivable that after they have been put up some new method may be found by the medical profession which will tend to prove that the present method of treating tuberculosis is entirely wrong, and that therefore the sums spent on these buildings would be entirely wasted. On the other hand, if you are going to erect temporary buildings, you ought to pay for these, not out of capital, but out of the annual income. The Government are taking a very wrong step in defrauding the old Sinking Fund and devoting the money, as they propose, for the erection of sanatoria.
Allusion has been made to the devoting of another £1,500,000 for making a present to the Development Commissioners. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to this fact. Sub-section (2), Section 2 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1900, reads as follows:—
"There shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund, or the growing produce thereof, in the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, and in each of the next succeeding four years, the sum of five hundred thousand pounds."
What does that mean? It means that when they passed the Development Act the House of Commons deliberately put in a clause compelling the Government of the
1282
day to contribute out of the yearly revenue of the country a sum of £500,000 each year for four years. In repealing this Section the Government have done something entirely contrary to the spirit in which the Act was framed, and have done something which was not right in taking away another sum of £1,500,000 which should have been devoted to the repayment of the National Debt of this country. On those grounds alone the Government deserve to be censured for the manner in which they have disposed of the surplus of the year.
Coming to the Death Duties, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated for a total sum of £25,150,000; that is an increase of £1,078,000, after deducting for arrears to come in. I would ask have not the Treasury been over-sanguine in making this estimate? I do not think that the Government fully realise what really has been the main, effect of the very large increase in the rates of Death Duties. Undoubtedly it has induced people very materially to split up their estates before they leave this life. Instead of giving their sons and daughters a yearly allowance on marriage they have in a great many cases deliberately handed over large capital sums, thereby reducing the sums which will come under the action of Death Duties. That must have a considerable effect on the yield of the Death Duties. It withdraws a large sum of money from payment of this particular taxation, and considerably reduces the capital sum in individual cases and therefore the rate at which the duty is charged. These Death Duties are a peculiarly crushing burden upon the industry of the country. Surely it is wrong that we should be spending every year no less a sum than £25,000,000 of what is after all the capital of this country upon the ordinary annual expenditure.
Besides that, the huge rate of these Death Duties has a very prejudicial effect on the trade and commerce of the country. The partner in a small private business may die. Surely if his successor has suddenly to find a large sum of money which must come out of the capital of the business it must be a very serious thing for the prosperity of the business. When all these vast sums have to be collected every year it means continuous selling in very large amounts of some of the best securities in this country, and this must have an effect in tending to diminish the prices of some of the chief securities

1283
in the market at the present day. There is one other point. I wish to ask for information regarding the Super-tax. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer Budgeted for some £3,000,000 to be produced by this tax. and I would be very glad if he would give us actual details of the expenditure incurred in the collection of the tax. I was one of those who did not record my vote in favour of the tax, because I believed that the total net sum it would produce would be remarkably small. I also believed that if this tax was to be fairly collected it would involve a large increase of the staff of the Inland Revenue. I quite admit it is a very simple thing to collect a large sum out of a Supertax if you do not take steps to carefully check the returns. Human nature being what it is, a certain particular class of people will defraud the revenue as much as they can. The Inland Revenue must exercise a continual supervision over the people it suspects of not making accurate returns.
As to the total net cost to the Exchequer of the Insurance Bill, it was going to be £50,000 this year and £4,781,000 in the year 1914. I gather that the latter figure would be the largest sum which would be taken out of the National Exchequer. Let us remember the case of the old age pensions. We were told they were to cost about £6,500,000. What has happened? The amount has practically doubled. If the House of Commons and the country had been told what old age pensions were to cost when the scheme was first introduced, there would not have been so many people who would have given their votes in favour of the Bill or abstained from voting against it. I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this rate of increase of expenditure can go on. It is curious to remember that the present Prime Minister when he assumed office as Chancellor of the Exchequer had to Budget for £141,000,000. He said that was far too much, and he said, "A return to more economical administration is the first, and paramount, duty of the Government."
Instead of budgeting now for £141,000,000. the present Budget is for no less an expenditure than £181,284,000. That is the very remarkable way in which the Liberal party, who came into power in 1906, mainly on the cry of economy, have carried out their promises at the election. In all seriousness I ask all parties in this House to consider whether
1284
the time has not come to put a check on this awfully grave expenditure. We cannot go on like this. Here you have an increase of no less than £40,000,000 in the past five years. Who are the people to suffer in the end? It is very easy to put a tax on rich men, but the high rate of Income Tax of 1906 was a check upon the trade and commerce of the country, besides which it prejudicially affected the profits on industry and the wages of the working classes. You cannot continue piling up taxation upon capital and upon the profits of trade and industry without the working classes really feeling the effects upon themselves. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House to try and see whether some check cannot be put upon this largely increasing expenditure, so that there may be in regard to it some better prospects in the future.
Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we in this quarter of the House do not leave the question where it was left by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I ask the Government to give us a sufficient statement as to their Estimate under this Budget of increased Irish expenditure. We had such a statement in 1909, and according to my recollection the figure was put at £450,000 by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had such a statement last year, when I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the increase in Irish taxation resulting from the Budget was £750,000. So far, we have not had any statement from the Government as to what they consider the effect of the present Budget will be. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think us unreasonable if we ask him to give us such a statement on this one day in the year which is the sole opportunity we have had of discussing Irish finance. We have had no official statement from the Treasury, but we have had a non-official statement given in a curious ventriloquial fashion, the voice being the voice of the hon. Member for East Mayo and the arguments being the arguments of the Treasury clerks. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with us if we claim that we should get the regular Treasury statement from the regular Treasury officials. If the hon. Member for East Mayo were a Treasury official I would congratulate him upon having made a typical Treasury statement in the speech which he made to-day.
The first question which I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the

1285
Exchequer is whether he adopts the figures which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo gave us. The average Irish Member of the House of Commons is in a singularly helpless position when he endeavours to discuss this question, helpless I mean as compared with the Treasury expert, who has—I will not say invented the figures, but at any rate the manipulation of the figures with which he supplies the House. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) pointed out that prima facie, to put it no higher, the figures of this Treasury Return show an increase in Irish taxation of more than two millions of money since the Budget was passed. I quite agree that is not, and my hon. Friend did not say it was, the net amount of Irish taxation. He said there were certain adjustments to be made resulting from the fact that the whole of the taxes had not come in the year 1909–10.
We, the rank and file of Irish Members, who have not had the assistance, as the hon. Member for East Mayo had, of the Treasury, we have none of the figures which enable us to make out those adjustments for ourselves. We may grope through these reports as much as we can, and when all is said and done we have simply the figures which this Return gives, and on those we are compelled to argue, whether we agree or disagree with them. It is said that figures can be made to prove anything, but the primary fact disclosed by this Return is the fact, which I think may justly be described as portentous, that in the last financial year Irish taxation reached the colossal figure of over eleven millions of money, or £11,665,000. In giving that figure I am adopting the Treasury view that the gross figures of collection must be adjusted and must be sifted to get what they describe as the net Irish taxation. I do not adopt these figures. I do not believe they are correct, but they are the only figures I have before me, and consequently the only figures on which I can argue. We start with what I have called the portentous fact that the last financial year saw Irish taxation reach the colossal figure of £11.665,000 as compared with the taxation of £5,200,000 levied at a time when the Irish population was nearly a million and a half greater than it is now. What is the figure to be compared with that? We are told that we cannot compare it with the figure for the previous year, because, in consequence of the financial dislocation caused by the rejection of the Budget, the
1286
taxes uncollected during that year reduced Irish taxation to a figure which makes it valueless for purposes of comparison. Accordingly I think the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to claim that we should put out of consideration the figure £8,355,000 for the year 1909–10, and that we should take as our starting point the figure for the year 1908–9, £9,250,000. Therefore we start with the proposition that, taking those two typical years, one typical of the taxation existing before the Budget and the other which we must take for the present as typical of the taxation after the Budget, there is an enormous increase of £2,400,000. Will any English Member tell me that if, instead of sitting in a Parliament at Westminster, we were sitting in a Parliament in Ireland, it would be possible for a Minister to get up and make his financial statement without once adverting to the fact that the taxation of our country had increased by £2,400,000? Yet that is the position in which we are left by the Minister to-day. With that monstrous fact staring us in the face, not one word has been said on the subject of Irish taxation.
I need not go back to the time when we had a Parliament of our own. Suppose we were at the time when we had an Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting at the side of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, would we be left without-one word on a topic of this kind? Yet I dare say many Members of the House think that an Irish Member is somewhat intruding on their attention because at twenty minutes past twelve he ventures to make a slight allusion to it. I do not hope to make any impression on Members on this question. It is vain for me to attempt to do so, because I belong to a small minority of the Irish representatives, and the voice of the majority as expressed to-day has been raised not in protest against this state of things, but in mild and enthusiastic defence of it, and in bitter condemnation of any Irish Member who ventures to raise his voice in protest. When the only official statement on behalf of the majority of the Irish representatives has been not in criticism of or attack on the British Treasury, but in its enthusiastic defence, minority though we are, not merely now in criticising the Budget of 1910–11, but as we were in criticising the Budget of 1909–10, it is our duty as Irish Members to make our protest.
I consider that we would fail in our duty if we did not do so. I hope the right

1287
hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us the Treasury Statement and the Treasury defence of this Return, and not leave us to the unofficial defence which was given before The question I want to ask is: does he adopt the figures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)? The hon. Member for East Mayo is driven to defend his previous attitude on the Budget, and to-day rose to demonstrate that all his vaticinations had been belied. Four hundred and fifty thousand pounds, or £500,000, was estimated to be the effect of the Budget on Irish taxation, and so it has turned out. How is it he has got that? By falsifying the amount of taxation from what we stated, and by falsifying the amount of the taxation which we have reached. As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has pointed out, there was a reduction of taxation from 1907–8 and 1908–9, the taxation on sugar having been reduced by a slight amount. Whether the figures of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo were Treasury figures, or contained Treasury figures, or whether they were put forward as Treasury suggestions, or were the product of the unaided genius of the hon. Gentleman himself, they were false!
The question is not what was the increase of the taxation as compared with 1907–8, but what was the increase of taxation as compared with the state of things existing when the Budget was passed? Accordingly we have to start not from the datum line of the half-conjunct taxation of 1907–8 and 1908–9, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo has admitted. Now we come to the taxation of £9,435,000, but we have to start from the taxation of 1908–9, which was £370,000 less, and resulted in that year in a total taxation, as the Treasury Minute showed, of £9,250,000. That, therefore, is the datum line from which we should start, not the false datum line invented by the hon. Member for East Mayo to serve the purpose of his argument, and which placed the starting point at the figure some £370,000 higher than it ought to have been placed. The hon. Member for East Mayo started from a false basis. His second figure is equally false. He takes an average, as he said, of two years before the Budget and of two years after. You must necessarily take from one year before the Budget—for the basis of the two years was different—
1288
and not start from any average. It was equally false to take an averge of two years after the Budget had passed.
The Budget did not take effect in the first year of its operation. To give only one instance of that fact, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in the Stamp Duties did not at all come into force in the first year of the Budget, and even for a short period of the second year. Furthermore, the familiar complaint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the many statements which he made to the House when the Budget was passing through it was that the whole finance, not merely of Ireland, but of the United Kingdom, was so demoralised by the Parliamentary occurrences of the year 1909–10 as to make the fiscal product of the year a figure wholly unreliable for any purpose of comparison. The question then is, if we do not take the average of the two years, as suggested by the hon. Member for East Mayo, what figures are we to take? I do not pretend to be able to speak with any authority upon that subject. I rather complain that upon that subject we have got no statement from the Treasury Bench. It is not for us to make calculations and to put estimates before the House; that is the business of the Treasury officials. Accordingly I cannot have any hope that the figures I put forward are necessarily accurate, but I have made my calculations as well as I could, and instead of the sum of £500,000 odd which the hon. Member for East Mayo has given as the increase of Irish taxation, my estimate, fallacious possibly also, would put the figure at something nearer £1,500,000, and I will tell the House how I arrive at that figure.
I admit that the figures of the taxes for 1910–11, which are £11,600,000, require some adjustment in view of the fact that the arrears of the previous year came into the calculations, and I have endeavoured to arrive at what the accurate figures for that purpose ought to be. The only data given us by the Government are the figures of the taxes for the years 1909–10 and for 1908–9. I have taken the figures for 1908–9 as being a fair basis from which to start, and deducting from that figure £9,250,000, the taxation for 1909–10, which amounted to £8,355,000, it would seem to show a deficit in calculation of something like £895,000. My calculation, therefore, is that the adjustment necessary to be made in the figures for 1910–11 in order to arrive at the normal taxes for that year is the figure

1289
of £11,665,000 reduced by £895,000, and that would seem to show that what we call the normal taxation for the year 1910–11 is something like £10,770,000, and it seems to me that that is the figure we must compare with the figure £9,250,000 for the year prior to the Budget.
Taking it on that basis, it appears that the increased taxation from the Budget amounts to £1,500,000. I do not contend that my figures are necessarily accurate. We are seeking information, and surely in view of the portentous facts disclosed in this Return we are not intruding too much upon those who represent the Treasury when we ask what are their figures, and inquire if our figures are wrong, and what is the Treasury estimate of the extra taxation which Ireland has to pay. It is the essence of the situation that the extra taxation from the Budget must increase year by year, and consequently we are entitled to assume that the figures will be larger than last year. Will the Secretary to the Treasury inform us what the Treasury figures are, and will he say whether he adopts the extraordinary calculations put before us by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)? The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not conclude his financial statement to-night without having the accustomed Treasury kick at Irish land purchase. He was called upon to explain why there had been such a decrease in the price of gilt-edged securities, and amongst other reasons he gave the familiar one of the calls the Treasury had to make on the public purse by large issues of Consols for Irish Land Stock to carry out land purchase in Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman said that was one of the causes which led to the fall in gilt-edged securities. I do not understand that argument. I can understand you saying that if you from time to time make large issues of Government securities it will necessarily decrease their price. The amount of money available for investment is necessarily limited, and if you make an unusually large call upon that surplus you will send up the price of Money and send down the price of Government securities. Yet we ask how does that affect gilt-edged securities outside Government securities? It is true that if you raise £10,000,000 for the purpose of buying powder or guns or for paying wages to build "Dreadnoughts," pro tanto you reduce the amount of money available for investment. You send up the price of
1290
money and send down the price of Government Stock. But the money invested in land purchase is not spent on guns or "Dreadnoughts" because it is reinvested. How does the issue of Land Stock affect gilt-edged securities? Land Stock is saleable, and it can be put on the market.
When a vendor sells Land Stock and turns it into sovereigns he reinvests it in other securities and presumably in those gilt-edged securities to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been referring. That may send down the price of Land Stock or Government Stock, and £5,000,000 of Government Stock may send down the price of Land Stock generally. If you immediately, by the issue of that Land Stock, release five million sterling to be invested in gilt-edged securities you do not send down the prices of those securities: you send them up by giving the general public so much more money to invest in them. Whatever may be said for the view that the price of Government Stock generally is affected by these periodical issues of Irish Land Stock, there is absolutely nothing to be said for the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is accountable for the fall in gilt-edged securities, and therefore I venture to say that that particular kick at Irish land purchase might very well have been left out from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I will not further intrude on the attention of the Committee. I will wind up by saying that I regard it as a satire on Parliamentary Government that we Irish Members should have to compress the debate upon Irish finance, covering a whole year, into one sitting at this period of the Session.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: It would be an outrage to address the House at any length at this hour of the night. But I rise to make a vigorous protest against taking the Second Reading of the Budget at this time of the year. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is representing the Treasury (Mr. Hob-house), that it is a scandal of the very first class, seeing that on more than one occasion the Prime Minister has suggested to us that we have ample opportunity every year on the Budget to review the whole question of taxation, that since 1909 we have never had a chance of doing so at all. In 1909 a new scheme of taxation was adopted, one to which many of us had very great objection, yet never since then have we had an opportunity of reviewing and discussing it, either when

1291
the House was full or at a period when it was convenient for hon. Members to consider the question. For the third time in succession we are put in exactly the same position, and we are asked to debate this subject in the dog-days with the temperature 90 degrees in the shade, with a great hotel in flames near by, and even the time allotted for the purpose is shortened by a discussion lasting three hours on a private Bill. We are invited to discuss this question with some amount of intelligence and with some degree of interest. It cannot be done. Then there is a veiled threat that next week we are to have the Committee stage of this Bill forced down our throats. That will be a still grosser outrage. Although I know it is hopeless to expect to be able to make any impression on the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else when the taxation of the year has to a large extent been collected. I would prefer to discuss this question in cooler weather—even in the months of November or December, when we could give a little more time to it. I trust this is the last time we shall be treated in this manner. We are sent here as representatives more or less—more rather than less—to look after the expenditure of the country and to see that taxation is levied on a fair and just basis. That is our first duty, but we never have had a chance of fulfilling it since the Budget of 1909. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Master of Elibank) is in his place. I hope that another year he will see that we are not jockeyed out of the rights we possess.
There are two points only I want to raise now. One was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech to-day, and has reference to the delay in the preparation of the Annual Register of Licence Values. Into the discussion tonight has been pitchforked a very interesting Debate by the Irish party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer left the House today under the impression that the entire responsibility for the delay in producing the Annual Register of Licence Values rested on the unfortunate publican who is taxed to death, and who seems to be liable on all occasions to abuse ad lib. But the publican has nothing to do with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Somerset House issued to these unfortunate people a form, consisting of six or seven pages, asking for particulars which no publican on earth could possibly give.
1292
It was the most ridiculous, the most ludicrous, and the most insane circular or form ever issued by a Government Department.
No advice could have been sought in regard to it from those at all acquainted with the subject. Apparently some ingenious clerk at Somerset House was set down to frame as many absurd and impossible questions as he could, and the result was that in a very short space of time four pages of the Form were withdrawn, and only the two last ones were insisted upon. And the joke is that the only information worth 2d. in settling the value of premises was obtainable in the first four pages, and if the authorities had selected some of the interrogations contained in the withdrawn pages they would have been able to get information which was in the possession of the publicans and might have been able to prepare a complete register. One would like to know how far, with the reduced information at their disposal, they have been able to proceed with their register. We only know that the larger houses of £500 and over—of which there are only about 2,000—have been valued by means of the information extracted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his satellites. But how many of the remaining 120,000 houses have been valued: how many have had provisional valuations sent them? I know of very few cases myself, and I am afraid there cannot be very many of them.
It has been admitted from the beginning of this controversy that the Licence Duties are excessive. That has been admitted even by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Consequently they are being charged on an entirely wrong basis. We were told when the Budget was brought in that within three or four months the register would be ready. But twelve months have elapsed, and still there is no register of licence value except in the case of the 2,000 houses of over £500, and at the present rate of progress it will be years before the register is completed. Yet all this time the licences are being charged on a ridiculously unfair and unjust basis. It seems to me in this matter the Government have set themselves an impossible task. I do not think it is possible to do it, and the sooner it is acknowledged and some better means are found of levying the duty the better. They ought to be levied on the trade a man does. That of course is the intention of Clause 44, but on the principle on which it is being carried out it will never be satisfactory On the ques-

1293
tion of Ireland the right hon. Gentleman put an extraordinary question from the Treasury Bench to the hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy). He was talking about the valuation of public-houses in England and Scotland under Clause 44. He was informed by my hon. Friend that those forms had been issued and withdrawn. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked, "Do you want a new valuation or do you not?" The Chancellor of the Exchequer under Clause 44 is bound to have a valuation. He has no right to ask that question.
The law says there shall be an annual register of value prepared for the three kingdoms. While in England and Scotland a valuation upon the new basis under Clause 44 would probably get rid of a great many anomalies and unjust charges, in Ireland the effect would be very different. Ireland at present gets the advantage of an extremely low valuation. The Licence Duties paid in Ireland are far lower in proportion than in England and Scotland, but if Clause 44 were put into effect they would be levied on exactly the same basis as in England and Scotland, and even this Government would be required to pay the same percentage on that basis in the one country as in the other, and therefore the Licence Duty in Ireland would be a great deal higher than it is now. That matter was brought out in Debate in 1909. The hon. Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) pointed out that the Irish Members had made a mistake in allowing Clause 44 to pass. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said, "No, that is all right. He cannot do that without legislation," forgetting entirely that all the legislation which was required was to apply a percentage to the basis which in Clause 44 he and his friends had already passed. That is the exact position of the matter and no one knows it better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Another point I wish to mention is that in virtue of a pledge given by him on the Revenue Bill, an attempt has been made to deal in this Bill with a definition of the word "premises." It is made in the interest of the licence holder and is intended to relieve him from being charged on premises which are not used for the licensed trade but which under the old definition were in some cases roped in. The attempt has been honestly made but I do not think is has succeeded. I do not think the Clause is a good one or that it gives what the right hon. Gentleman suggested it would give, and we shall have to propose some Amendments to it.
Mr. CASSEL: I should like to join in the protests which have been made against taking this Bill on a day on which three hours have been consumed by a private Bill, depriving the Opposition of its opportunity of criticising the finance of the Government.
It is absolutely impossible now to attempt to raise the various points which it was my intention to raise to-night. While strongly protesting against the course to which we have been subjected, I shall therefore content myself with dealing with one point only, and that is the extraordinary document issued this morning, and which is called "Instructions to Land Valuers." For a long time I felt the greatest possible difficulty in understanding how Increment Duty was going to be worked, or how you were going to arrive when a sale took place at the increment which had accrued. I am sure the House never understood that the effect was going to be what it is according to the "Instructions to Land Valuers." It Is no longer to the Act we have to look for ascertaining that, but to this document. I was not in the House at the time the Bill was being discussed, but from reading the Debates one would understand that it was not to be duty arising on the sale of the building. Over and over again the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the building trade that that was not his intention, and that it was not the effect of the Act. You have only to read through this document to see that that is its effect. What happens?
Take the simplest case and apply these instructions to it. Assume a case of land and building of which the gross value—land and building together—is £800. The site value of the land alone is £400. Assume that that is sold at the original valuation—assume that it is sold for £1,000—how do you arrive at the amount of the increment value? If you look at the instructions, you will find that what the valuer has got to do is to make two independent calculations. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he draws any distinction between a calculation and a valuation. Apparently it is not to be an independent valuation, but a calculation. What is a "calculation" with regard to value? Is a calculation intended to mean a valuation? If so, then surely he had better say so in his instructions. The instructions say that it is to be an independent calculation, and without necessarily—the word

1295
necessarily being in italics—being bound by the actual consideration paid. What are the circumstances under which the valuer is bound by the consideration paid? There is no indication. Apparently it is simply left to the absolute discretion of the valuer himself whether he is to be bound by the price paid for the property or not. Either it is the intention of the Act and the Government that he should be bound or not bound by the price received on the sale of the property. But there are some circumstances under which he is to be bound and others under which he is not to be bound. In some way these circumstances should be set out in the circular. Assume that when the valuer comes to make his independent calculation the property has not varied in value at all, that it remains at the original gross value of £800, that the site value is £400, and that £1,000 has been received on the sale.
The site value and the gross value have not gone up, but still, at the same time, Increment Duty would be payable on £200. Payable on what? On the profit of the sale through the vendor receiving more than the property was worth for buildings and land together. Upon the face of this document it is made absolutely clear—I do not say it was intentional, but it is the fact—that the House has been misled, and the building trade has been misled, as to the effect of the Act. The last clause of the document says Increment Value Duty is to be collected in all cases where there has been either an increase in the value or site as compared with the original site value, which is what the House intended, and the only thing; and then there is put in the alternative which the House did not intend, following the Debates or the utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the unit of valuation or the interest therein has actually been sold for more than it is worth at the time. That means to say that if as a result, not of a valuation, but what is called an independent calculation, not necessarily bound by the actual consideration paid, but some independent calculation, property has been sold for more than it is worth, then you have no Increment Duty charged on it. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that he should alter these instructions so as to bring them into conformity with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer led the House to believe the Act meant, or that he will introduce some Amendment into the Act which will make it in conformity with these assurances.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has touched on a point which was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Essex. Both hon. Members rather wished the House to believe that the instructions to valuers had gone beyond the power conferred on the Government by the Act, and the hon. Member who just spoke referred particularly to the last part of these instructions. I think that if he looks at the Act and the instructions he will see that they do not in any way go beyond the letter of the Act, and that they in no way create any powers not provided by the Act itself, and that therefore the instructions, which have been drawn up after careful consideration by the Inland Revenue Department, are perfectly in order. What happens is this. The total value is ascertained. From that value is deducted the value of the buildings. The remainder must be the site. Any value, therefore, which attaches to the site is under the Act capable of being charged with duty and nothing beyond that is done by the instructions given to valuers.
I pass from that and come to the part passed earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). He referred to the Treasury Return and pointed out to the House that in his judgment there had been an increase of two millions in the taxation imposed upon Ireland by the Budget of 1909–10.
1.0 A.M.
In support of that contention he referred the House to the figures shown upon page 5 of the Return, and compared the figure for 1910–11 with the figure for 1908–9, because, as he said, it would be unfair to refer to the figure for 1909–10. He suggested that the difference between ten millions which was collected in 1905–9 with the twelve and a quarter millions collected in 1910–11 represented the difference of the taxation raised in Ireland.
Mr. T. M HEALY: Subject to adjustment.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: "Subject to adjustment" is practically the whole thing. It is not a mere trifle or incidental. It is the essence of the comparison which must be instituted to arrive at a proper figure at all. What should be done in the case of the revenue collected in Ireland is precisely the same as when collected in England. It is well known to the House that the revenue for 1909–10 was short for reasons I need not enter into, and that the revenue for 1910–11 was over-collected and that

1297
much of it had reference to the previous year. It is therefore necessary to add these figures together and to divide them by two, and if the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) will do that sum he will find that the total revenue collected in these two years is £20,800,000, and therefore the revenue which is to be assigned to either of these two years is about £10,400,000. If he will go back to the year to which he made reference—1908–9—the revenue collected in that year was £10,050,000, and the increase therefore in the taxation which has resulted from the Budget is not as he has put it to the House, from £2,000,000 to £2,500,000, but an increase of about £300,000 to £400,000. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) put it at £530,000. It is, of course, true that in respect of both these last years the whole of the revenues collected in the two years are subject to certain slight fluctuations which are not material to the case we are now considering.
But in confirmation of what I have said, if the hon. Member for Cork had referred to another Return, which was issued by myself on 28th April, 1910, he would have seen that the amount to be collected in excess from Ireland in a full year—that is when the Land Value Duties have reached their maximum—in respect of the new duties imposed by that Act will amount to £84,000, and in respect to the existing duties will amount to about £518,000, or somewhere thereabout. That is, of course, subject to adjustments to be made. But the total excess revenue to be collected from Ireland in a full year when all the duties have come to full fruition will be £600,000, or a very close approximation to to the figure named by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I hope the figures I have submitted to the House will enable the hon. Member for Cork to correct the opinion he arrived at. Now a great many questions have been put before the House but, as hon. Members have said, the hour is late. Most of the points raised are Committee points. That raised by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs is clearly a Committee point. He represented that a hardship existed in the cases where a public-house business was intermingled with other business and in order to meet that case he said we ought to put down a definition. Therefore the Clause is an agreed Clause in respect that we are both endeavouring to arrive at the same conclusion. There may be some variation of
1298
the words the hon. Member may desire, but we are agreed as to the principle of the Clause.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why have circumstances arisen to cause a change?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certain circumstances have arisen to cause us to believe that certain changes should be made, not in the principle of the Bill, but in order to meet proved hardships. There was an observation made upon Clause 8 of the Bill in regard to the disposal of the surplus, but about which I do not think I need trouble the House at this point.. There is no waste or extravagance in making use of surpluses at present in our possession in order to replace expenditure which would otherwise have to be met by borrowing. I hope I may ask the House to come to a conclusion now.
Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: There was one other point on which I think the right hon. Gentleman might have given some further information. I think it is a vital point.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; I think I have the information at my disposal, but I am afraid I have not got it now. I hope I may ask the Committee to come to a conclusion. I have endeavoured to meet all the important points which have been raised, and I hope we may now arrive at a decision on the Second Reading.
Mr. PETO: I should be glad to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I am concerned, if the circumstances were in any way normal. I do not want to waste the time of the House in any attempt to register a protest against these proceedings at this hour, but it seems to me that a very important part of this Finance Bill has been barely touched upon in one or two of the speeches in the course of this debate, from which three hours have been taken away by a Private Bill. I refer to Clause 2, dealing with the tax on cocoa and chocolate. You have in that a new departure. It provided that the Customs Duty of 2d. per pound on cocoa and chocolate shall cease. I am not going into the question of fiscal policy, but I think the matter deserves some answer and more information than we have yet received. It will be alleged, no doubt, that this great change is to be made at the instance, and for the benefit, of the great majority of those engaged in the cocoa and chocolate trade; but, on the contrary,

1299
hon. Members have to-day received a protest against this proposed change signed by thirty firms, out of the not very large number of those who are engaged as cocoa and chocolate manufacturers in this country.
I am quite aware that there is a sharp division in fiscal opinion among the cocoa trade. I am also aware that there are one or two large firms which are very closely allied with other things besides the cocoa industry. We had last year a speech from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree), which I do not wish to refer to in his absence, but I gave him notice that I would find it absolutely necessary to do so in order to go into the question. What is the real reason for this Clause 2 in the Finance Bill? I think everyone will agree that it is a general principle of the finance of both sides, and of both schools of thought, that if you are going to make a great change in the financial provisions affecting a particular trade, you ought to do it with a view, certainly not of injuring the trade and industry of the country. What do we find these thirty gentlemen representing firms who are engaged in the cocoa trade say? They say that a meeting of cocoa and chocolate manufacturers was held in London on 24th May, they give a list of the firms represented; there were thirty firms represented, most of whom are well known in the trade. They include Caley and Sons, Epps and Co., the Mazawattee Company, and many others. They say:—
"This meeting views with grave concern the proposed alterations in the duties on cocoa and chocolate imported into great Britain."
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Read the first clause of that.
Mr. PETO: I will do so shortly. It is well to bear in mind that this is the statement of the majority of the chocolate makers. They say:—
"That this meeting views with grave concern the proposed alterations in the duties on cocoa and chocolate imported into Great Britain, which appear to have been framed without an opportunity having been given to the majority of the chocolate makers in this country to state the effects they must inevitably have upon that trade, as they will constitute a serious menace to the continued prosperity of the cocoa and chocolate industry, by increasing the foreign competition, without increasing the consumption of cocoa and chocolate, thereby endangering the employment and decreasing the wages of many workpeople and imperilling the large amount of capital invested in this industry, and trusts that the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to meet a deputation from the Trade, so that he may hear fully the gravity of the issues involved."
1300
I do not intend to make any charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having found an opportunity of meeting the members of the trade, but I think it would be an extraordinary thing if between May 24th and August 9th it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet so large a body of people engaged in the trade which they allege is threatened by the change it is proposed to make by the Finance Bill. We know the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had other engagements and other interests to consider rather than those of the finance of the country, and matters to attend to requiring perhaps much more preparation than the Finance Bill of the year. The House is indebted to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to see the deputation that we have got this information they have given us. There are two or three other points. They say:—
"Whether rightly or wrongly, the industry has developed under a certain amount of Protection."
That is common to both sides of the House. That is admitted. And:—
"Whilst the abolition of such Protection may in theory be in accordance with the principles of Free Trade, the result must be that a large number of workers at present employed in the industry will lose their employment. The proposed reduction of duty, amounting in some cases to l½d. in the lb., will be an advantage to the foreign manufacturers, but will not benefit the actual consumer who buys by the ounce."
I will not refer to this statement further, except, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Samuel) asked me, to the first clause of it, which says:—
"That this meeting welcomes the promise of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to grant a drawback on the cocoa in exported cocoa and chocolate, the absence of which has long constituted a serious burden on the export trade."
That brings me to the speech of the hon. Member for York, to which I have already referred. What did he ask for last year. He said, "Give us Free Trade." But this is not what is in the Bill. It is not the total abolition of the duty on cocoa and chocolate altogether. The hon. Member pointed out in that speech that it was an injury to the trade in which he was specially interested, the cocoa trade, because there was no rebate granted. Hon. Members know that the duty on raw cocoa is 1d. per lb., and he found himself at a disadvantage, so far as the foreign trade is concerned. What was his conclusion? That there should be the abolition of the duty on raw cocoa. This year, on this side of the House, those who believe in Tariff Reform would be in entire agreement with

1301
that. We have never set up any justification for an Import Duty on raw material. What does the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He does exactly the opposite. He removes the duty on the manufactured article, which duty, it is generally admitted, has done some kind of good, particularly to chocolate makers and makers of bon-bons and that sort of thing where the cocoa in the chocolate is a very small percentage. At 1½d. or 1¾d. on the lb. that is a very large amount of protection, perhaps 50 or 60 per cent., and a large industry has grown up.
I would give one example. Immediately after he made the speech last year, speaking for himself and other members of the trade, when he said, "Give us Free Trade," there was a protest, not the protest I have been describing, but another protest which was made immediately after his speech. In that protest they entirely disagreed with his view. That protest was not made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was made to the Tariff Reform League. It was thought they would have some influence in bringing the case forward. Among those firms who objected there was a French firm, Messrs. Boisellier, of Watford and London, and I want to call the attention of the House to this, that under the operation of this admittedly protective tax on unmanufactured chocolate we have got a foreign firm coming over here to manufacture the highest class of finished goods, because it pays them better. How can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the country—and I fully agree with him—that under the Patents' Act he has done a great benefit to this country, and that the manufacture of such things as Sanatogen, which is a patented article made in Cornwall, and other things of the kind are introduced in this country under his own Patents Act, yet he deals with the Cocoa Duty in this way and instead of simply removing the duty on the raw material, which would save all trouble of drawbacks or anything of the kind, he proposes that which will require an enormous amount of money expended in revenue collecting.
It certainly will not be like the Supertax—one-half per cent. It will be a great deal more than that of what is left of the Cocoa tax, which altogether only brings in about £300,000. The right hon. Gentleman cuts this in half, and takes away the very half which does some good to some people in this country, leaving the half for
1302
which there is no justification whatever under any system of finance at all. I think we have to look a little deeper for the real reason of that. Last year the hon. Member for Tyneside in a speech he made gave us the real reason. I have the Hansard Report here. After referring to the amount of the duty, and remarking that the whole thing was a small matter, he said it was not a small matter for the honour and consistency of the Free Trade movement. Later on in his speech he said, "It places an extremely useful weapon in the hands of hon. Members opposite." Now I think in that we have the true reasons. Last night in the Debate in this House there was some reference to the question of the difficulty there might be in the future for Mr. Speaker to decide what is a measure the main governing principle of which is finance. I think there is no difficulty in deciding what is the main governing principle of Clause 2: it is to remove what is alleged to be a useful weapon to those who believe in the system of finance which we advocate, and in order to save the honour and consistency of the Free Trade movement. For that, and nothing else, the interests of thousands of workpeople in, this country are to be sacrificed. We are to go the longest possible way to give some advantage to foreign competition in order to remove, for the sake of the consistency and honour of the Free Trade movement, the one single piece of finance we have still got left as a relic from more sane and intelligible times.
I should have liked to go a little further into this question to point out that we shall suffer in the most highly manufactured goods in the two or three main branches of this trade. The cocoa trade always refers to these as the cocoa duties, although the main thing they affect is the manufactured chocolate industry. The hon. Member for York last year spoke of what he knew of his own trade, and he said one thing which was very remarkable with regard to the cocoa trade. He pointed out that it took practically two pounds of raw cocoa to manufacture a pound of the, I believe, excellent cocoa powder product which is produced by their firm, and he mentioned that there was another article called cocoa-butter which had a small measure of protection, but he never mentioned to this House that this small toy-product is ordinarily valued at a higher price per pound than the finished cocoa itself in

1303
Mincing Lane, and in many kinds of cocoa there is as much cocoa-butter as cocoa-powder, so that one can get a little idea of the enormous advantage even in the cocoa industry the incidence of the taxation we have had in the past has been. But when you go from that, which is a much smaller case, and in which this drawback will undoubtedly be of use, and you turn to the chocolate industry, the drawback put into this Bill, which is supposed to be an excuse for leaving the very part of the duty for which there is no excuse at all—the duty on the raw material—will be practially useless to the trade. I say so for this reason. In all the principal markets there are high protective duties against manufactured chocolate. That is so in the case of Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, France, and the United States—in every country except this.
When you turn to the Colonies you have already the benefit of a very large measure of preference. I say, therefore, that this miserable little drawback of a penny per 1b. will not assist the exportation of a single cwt. of manufactured chocolate to protected countries at all. The effect on the chocolate trade—and that is why you have thirty signatures to that paper which reached hon. Members this morning—will be an enormous incursion of cheap foreign chocolate, though no
cheaper than that manufactured to-day in this country, but cheap foreign chocolate, instead of cheap English chocolate. That will be the sole difference. In Clause 2 we have got the very opposite of what ought to have been done with the desire and intention of removing a very useful weapon from the hands of Tariff Reformers, and for the honour and consistency of the Free Trade movement. I wish to repeat the protest that the employment of thousands of people in this country is jeopardised, if not entirely done away with. Beyond that, I say that if that is the intention, as I believe it is, hon. Members opposite will find that they are greatly mistaken in supposing they have removed an argument against the Free Trade movement. On the contrary, before twelve months are out, unless that Clause is entirely altered, they will have afforded an illustration, not only of the prosperity of a trade which is due to a measure of protection it has received in the past, but that the withdrawal of that protection involves the ruin of thousands of people in this country and of dozens of firms.
Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 21.

Division No. 318.]

AYES.

[1.30 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Elverston, Sir Harold

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Adamson, William

Esmonde, Or. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Addison, Dr. C.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Falconer, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Barton, William

Ffrench, Peter

Lundon, Thomas

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

Field, William

Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

Bentham, G. J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Booth, Frederick Handel

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brace, William

Glanville, H. J.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Bryce, J. Annan

Greig, Col. J. W.

McGhee, Richard

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

Muldoon, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Munro, Robert

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Hackett, John

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Clancy, John Joseph

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nolan, Joseph

Clough, William

Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

Nuttall, Harry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haworth, Sir Arthur A.

O'Doherty, Philip

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Crumley, Patrick

Higham, John Sharp

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

Cullinan, J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dawes, J. A.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Dillon, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rattan, Peter Wilson

Doris, William

Jones, W S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

Reddy, Michael

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Robinson, Sidney

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Webb, H.

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Sutton, John E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Scanian, Thomas

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Toulmin, Sir George

Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. S.

Verney, Sir Harry

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Sheehy, David

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gilhooly, James

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Guiney, P.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Healy, Maurice (Cork)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

Touche, George Alexander

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, Sir George

Courthope, George Loyd

Mount, William Arthur

Crean, Eugene

Neville, Reginald J. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Newman, John R. P.

Peto and Mr. Cassel.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Thursday).

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, that this House do now adjourn.—[Master of Elibank.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Two a.m., Thursday, 10th August.