Commons Sitting of 9 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill (by Order),
Halifax Corporation Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Military Lands Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
Sir Edwin Cornwall reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE PROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Parsonages Act, 1838, and the Church Building Act, 1839." [Parsonages Bill [Lords.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Argentine Cattle.
  Mr. BIGLANDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement by Lord Carrington referring to the embargo on Argentine cattle to the effect that the Foreign Office is kept constantly informed as to the fluctuations of disease in Argentina, and that the latest reports show that the country is still unable to present a clean bill of health, what official reports dealing with the matter referred to have been received since the 1st January last, and from whom they were received; and would he lay upon the
  1370
  Table copies of such reports and of any correspondence which has passed between His Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government on this matter since the 1st January last?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): No correspondence has passed on the subject with the Argentine Government since the date mentioned. A report has been received from H.M. Consul at Rosario, dated December 31st, stating that oases of disease had been notified. A report recently received from H.M. Minister at Buenos Aires stated that, in view of the exceptionally virulent character of the present outbreak, measures were being taken for the more effective sanitary supervision of animals.

  Declaration of London.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether there is any instance in the last thirty years in which foodstuffs carried on a neutral vessel have been condemned by a Prize Court of any nation as absolute contraband of war; and, if so, when and by whom?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that such cases have actually occurred. Foodstuffs were not condemned as absolute contraband in the Prize Courts of either Russia or Japan, but if the hon. and learned Member will refer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Central Bradford yesterday, he will see that in various cases during the Russo-Japanese war foodstuffs were condemned without any clear proof that they were intended for Government use, and when they were shipped under conditions which afforded no satisfactory reasons for assuming that they were so destined.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Not on the ground that they were contraband?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: Not on the ground that they were contraband, but without any proof that they were.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would state which, if any, of the articles enumerated in Article 28 of the Declaration of London as not capable of being declared contraband of war have been within the last 30 years declared contraband of war; by what Powers and under what circumstances; if he would say in what instances within the last 30 years any of the articles

  1371
  so enumerated have been condemned by a Prize Court as contraband of war; and whether any of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference in London claimed at such conference to exclude any of the articles so enumerated from the provisions of Article 28?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: Cotton is the only article included in the free list in Article 28 of the Declaration of London which has been definitely declared by a belligerent to be contraband within the last thirty years. On 8th April, 1904, a Supplementary Imperial Order was issued by the Russian Government that cotton should be included amongst the articles declared to be contraband in the notification of the 14th of February, 1904; and cotton was condemned as contraband in the Russian Prize Courts in the cases of the "Calchas" and the "St. Kilda." I find that there were other articles which were condemned in the Prize Courts of First Instance during the Russo-Japanese War, but in regard to which the decisions were subsequently reversed on appeal. Amongst them may be cited the following: Paper, knitting machines, glass ware, window glass, paint, aniline dyes, wearing apparel, copra, hemp, camphor, bristles, chairs, old indiarubber, varnish, tanned sheepskins and hides. In some cases these final decisions were not pronounced until long after the war had ended, and the object of the free list is to ensure that the shipping trade of neutrals shall not be dislocated by the capture of goods of this kind, which can have no connection with the military operations of the belligerents. No article could have been inserted in the free list against the wish of any of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference, but some of the articles ultimately included were objected to in the first instance by some of the Powers, for example, the important article of cotton.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice sitting as a Prize Court has jurisdiction throughout the whole of His Majesty's dominions and has power to enforce its orders against our fellow subjects within its jurisdiction; whether he is aware that there is a large number of decisions of the Prize Courts of this Country in which the law of nations of particular points has been declared and applied by those courts, and orders have been made
  1372
  and enforced against our fellow subjects in accordance with the law so declared, and that the law of nations so declared by our Prize Courts constitutes the unwritten law to which our Prize Courts are bound to conform in giving their decisions, unless and until an alteration has been made therein in such a manner as to become binding on our fellow subjects; whether an alteration in that unwritten law can be made binding upon and enforced against our fellow subjects by a treaty or convention made in the exercise of the royal prerogative without the authority of Parliament; and, if the answer to the last question be in the affirmative, whether, in view of modern constitutional usage, it is intended to make alterations in such unwritten law which may injuriously affect our fellow subjects without the authority of Parliament?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The answer to the first three questions is in the affirmative. That to the last is in the negative, inasmuch as, although I do not admit that any provisions of the Declaration of London could have the injurious effect referred to, I have already stated, in answer to a supplementary question asked on 18th November, 1910, that the consent of Parliament is constitutionally not necessary to the ratification of the Declaration of London, but as is well known no Government would advise His Majesty to ratify a Convention against the declared opinion of the House of Commons.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In giving that answer has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the case of Walker and Baird which has been brought before the Privy Council?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: My attention has not been called to it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Law Officers?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will put down a question, an unstarred question, so that I can be quite sure what he refers to, I will then consider the point.

  Morocco (Robbery of Courier).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he had any information respecting the robbing of an English courier in Morocco and the reported insurrectionary movement in that country?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have no information respecting the robbing of an English courier in Morocco. I learn from His Majesty's Minister at Tangier that the tribes round Fez have revolted against the Moorish Government, and that the situation is serious.

  Persia (Attacks on British Subjects).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention had been called to the attack on two British subjects near Isphan, and to the recent robberies from caravans between Shiraz and Isphan; and whether he proposed to take decisive steps to safeguard British subjects and British trade along the trade routes in Southern Persia?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have not received information from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran respecting the attack on two British subjects; but a telegraphic report respecting the caravan robberies has been received. Sir George Barclay has made strong representations to the Persian Government on the subject, urging them immediately to despatch a force from Shiraz to punish the robbers and recover the stolen property, and to hasten the arrival there of the Governor-General. He states that the Persian Government are alive to the gravity of the situation, and are making a serious effort to carry out their undertaking to restore order on the roads of southern Persia.

  Mohammed Farid Bey.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that Farid Bey, the leader of the National party in Egypt, was tried not under the ordinary law but under a special law enacted last year by decree; whether, under this law, the accused is tried by judges specially selected by the executive, without jury or right of appeal; and whether, in view of the character of the offence alleged against Farid Bey, he will advise the Egyptian Government to remit the remainder of his sentence?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The law dealing with Press offences was amended last year by a decree promulgated before the commission of the offence for which Mohammed Farid Bey was convicted. There is therefore no special connection between the amendment of the law and the case in point. I have no information with regard to the matters dealt with in
  1374
  the second part of the question, and the reply to the third part is in the negative. His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt has been instructed to send a report on the trial.

  Coptic Assembly (Egypt).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to a meeting of the General Coptic Assembly at Assiut on Monday 6th March, and to the allegation that difficulties arose between the Coptic authorities and the Egyptian Government as to the place and character of the meeting; whether he has received from Egypt any reports as to the objects and conduct of the meetings; and whether he has received any communications criticising the action of the Egyptian Government in connection with the meetings of the Coptic Committee or Coptic General Assembly?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The reply to all the hon. Member's questions is in the negative.

  Glin District Council.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that the Glin District Council have appointed as clerk the wife of the late clerk, who was dismissed and fined in sums of £10 and £30, and is now serving a term of three months' imprisonment for a criminal assault on a child under the age of sixteen, to whom he had to pay £40 compensation; and whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the appointment of the wife of a convicted felon to this position?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No permanent appointment has yet been made to the position of clerk of the Glin Rural District Council. The wife of the late clerk was unanimously appointed to act as temporary clerk, and the appointment has received the sanction of the Local Government Board.
  Captain CRAIG: Would it not be possible to appoint some one of more respectable antecedents?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It does not always follow that a woman is to be classed with her husband. A woman may marry a scoundrel.
  Mr. MOORE: Has this gentleman vacated his appointment, and if so, why

  1375
  is only a temporary appointment made and why are not advertisements inserted for the election of a successor?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot really answer that question. The post is vacant, and a temporary appointment has been made.
  Mr. MOORE: When will advertisements be published for the new appointment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

  Congested Estates (Sligo and Kerry).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether the grazing ranch of Branchfield, at present in the nominal occupation of Mr. McKimm and situate in the parish of Mullinabreena, Tubbercurry rural district, county Sligo, had yet been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Boards; and, if not, whether, seeing that the average value of the other holdings on that estate does not exceed £3, and that this farm, if divided, would relieve congestion in the district, the Board will open negotiations at once for the purchase of this farm?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board were informed that the farm in question was the subject of proceedings before the Estates Commissioners, and they therefore declined to enter into negotiations for its purchase until it was vested in Mr. McKimm.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on the 23rd May, 1910, a memorial signed by a number of cottiers residing in the congested districts of Carnaleck and Ballyglass, situate near Cloonacool, Tubbercurry rural district, county Sligo, was sent to the Congested Districts Board, in which it was pointed out that there were four nonresidential farms and one grazing ranch in the neighbourhood suitable for the enlargement of small holdings; whether one of the farms referred to in the memorial, namely, Carnaleck, has recently been purchased over the heads of the tenants by a police pensioner named Henry; and, if so, what action the Board propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board did not receive the memorial referred to, but received several other memorials asking them to negotiate for the purchase of these lands, and they have communicated with the owner. The lands
  1376
  of Ballyglass, including 343 acres of untenanted land, have been offered to the Board, and will be inspected as soon as practicable. The lands of Carnaleck have not been offered to the Board, who have no information as to the alleged purchase of this farm.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any and, if so, what steps to complete the negotiations for the purpose of the Blenner-hassett estate, near Caragh, county Kerry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board offered to negotiate with the tenants for the sale of the unsold portion of the estate, and were informed that the owner was not prepared to agree to this on the proposed terms. They will again communicate with the agent.

  Evicted Tenant (Caherciveen).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that no steps have yet been taken by the Estates Commissioners to secure the reinstatement of John Golden, an evicted tenant on the Morrogh Bernard estate, near Caherciveen, county Kerry; and whether the application will be dealt with in the near future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The holding in question is now in the occupation of Golden's niece, and the Estates Commissioners have decided to take no action in the matter.

  National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked whether, in view of the urgency of the case, the Board of National Education for Ireland have applied for funds from the Treasury to enable schools to be built at Coalisland, county Tyrone, to accommodate 300 children; and, if not, whether they intend doing so?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in reply to the hon. Member's question on 2nd instant, the case of the school referred to is one of several which have recently been the subject of correspondence with the Treasury. It has not been put forward by the Commissioners of National Education as a case of greater urgency than a number of others.
  Mr. W. A. REDMONDasked whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in their Report for the year 1910, state that the Treasury Grant is

  1377
  wholly inadequate for their immediate needs; and what steps he intends to take, if any, to impress upon the Treasury the necessity of supplying the necessary funds?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen the statement referred to. The Irish Government have been for some time in communication with the Treasury on the subject. The way the matter stands is this: The amount provided for the six years ending 31st March, 1913, is £240,000. Of this amount only £147,722 has been actually paid out by the Board of Works, but the Commissioners of National Education have sanctioned grants to the amount of £235,887, and have approved provisionally of the erection of schoolhouses in 130 additional cases, at a total estimated cost of £135,000. It will be seen, therefore, that the Commissioners have anticipated to a considerable extent the Parliamentary Grants, and are not in a position to enter into fresh obligations. In that sense there are no funds available, but there is still £92,278 to be spent before the £240,000 is exhausted.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to have this grant increased?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I quite agree that from the point of view of the necessities of Ireland this grant is insufficient. Of course, there are a great many other demands made upon the Treasury.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked in how many cases the erection or completion of vested schools in Ireland is being delayed because of the failure of the Treasury to provide the grants which they have provided for many years past in similar cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply just given to the hon. Member for East Tyrone. There are at present before the Commissioners of National Education 262 applications for grants towards the erection of new school-houses which cannot be dealt with owing to the fact that the funds provided for building grants have already been earmarked for other cases. I have no reason to believe that there is any case in which the completion of a school-house already in course of erection has been delayed from want of funds.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: In view of the very large number of schools awaiting these grants will the right hon. Gentleman
  1378
  try to push the negotiations with the Treasury at an early date so as to get some money?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member only knew all that I am doing with the Treasury he would not question my activity in the matter.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether the Chief Secretary is now in a position to state the result of his negotiations with the Treasury on the subject of providing a moiety of the cost of adequately heating and cleansing Irish national schools; and, if so, whether he will support the Bill for that purpose introduced by the hon. Member for East Down?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The negotiations are still going on, and I am not without hope of being able to effect the object in view without recourse to legislation, but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any intimation as to when will be a suitable time to put down a question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman, whom I compliment on the activity he has shown in this matter.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked whether provision has been or is being made by the Treasury to carry into effect the reform some time ago requested by the National Board and already promised, namely, to secure assistant teachers in their positions by allowing a fall of ten units in the present appointing averages before salaries are withdrawn?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The matter referred to is at present the subject of correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.

  McCann Case (Police Investigations).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the Chief Secretary will state where the investigations of the police, so far as they have gone, lead him to believe the McCann children are hidden?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The investigations of the police do not enable a definite answer to be given. There is a report that the father is in America, that the children have been taken out to him, but the police have not as yet been able to find out whether the rumour is true.

  Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the Chief Secretary's attention had been called to the sale of foreign tobacco as Irish grown; and if he will at once see that the proper authorities take steps to deal with this fraud on Irish industry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been drawn to this matter, and inquiry is being made respecting it.

  Recruiting, Ireland (Alleged False Attestation).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the Chief Secretary is aware that a man named John Wilson, when being prosecuted at Cavan petty sessions on 25th February for making a false attestation on a recruiting form, by saying he was not married when in fact he was married, made a statement to the effect that he believed that when a Roman Catholic was married to a Protestant it was no marriage, and that he had explained his position to his priest, who had told him there was no marriage and had advised him to answer "No" to the question, "Are you married or single," in the attestation paper; and whether, in view of the widespread feelings which have resulted from the Ne Temere decree in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman will say what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Wilson made the statement attributed to him, but the presiding magistrate, who was himself a Roman Catholic, expressed his belief that Wilson knew perfectly well he was married, and he was convicted and sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. The existing law is quite sufficient to meet such cases.

  Evicted Tenants Act (Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether Mr. Patrick Skerry, Ballyboy, Gort, was evicted out of his holding on the estate of Lord Gough, on the 6th September, 1888; whether he was informed in February last that the Estates Commissioners do not intend to provide him with a holding; and will the Chief Secretary explain the reasons which induced the Commissioners to exclude this man from the benefits of the Evicted Tenants Act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received an application from Patrick Skerry, seeking reinstatement in a holding formerly occupied by him, and now in the occupation of another tenant,
  1380
  and have decided to take no action in the case. It would be contrary to the established practice to state the reasons which actuate the Commissioners in the exercise of the discretion vested in them.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the total number of applications from evicted tenants in the county of Meath; how many were admitted; how many satisfied; and how many are still without holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to Table XXVII. in the Appendix to the Report of the Estates Commissioners for the year ending 31st March, 1910, which gives the information he requires.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether Bernard Dunne, an evicted tenant from the Radcliffe estate, at Drominiskin, county Meath, applied for reinstatement or for an equivalent holding; whether he was waited on by an inspector from the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take in his case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Dunne's application has been inquired into and noted for consideration in the allotment of any suitable untenanted land acquired by the Estates Commissioners.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether Mrs. Michael Monaghan, of Glones, Athenry, sent in an originating request to the Estates Commissioners in reference to certain lands which she is willing to part with in the vicinity of Glones; whether the district is one which suffers largely from small marshy holdings; and whether the Chief Secretary "will communicate with the Estates Commissioners and point out to them the advisability of acquiring those lands in the interest of the congests?
  Mr. BIRRELL: An originating request has not been lodged for the sale of these lands to the Estates Commissioners. The owner expressed her willingness to sell portion of the lands to the Commissioners, who after inspection decided not to make an offer. Mrs. Monaghan has recently informed the Commissioners that she is willing to sell the property, and her letter is being referred to the Congested Districts Board as the lands are situate in a congested districts county.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Estates Commissioners have made any move with a view to the purchase of the

  1381
  untenanted lands on the estate of Lord Clarina, at Carrig East and Carrig West; whether Lord Clarina is striving to have the land and the price of it by getting Lady Clarina made tenant under the Land Act; if so, will steps be taken to prevent such a thing occurring, as there are numerous smallholders, labourers, and the sons of evicted tenants in the locality; are the Estates Commissioners aware that this land is grazed for the most part by eleven months' graziers; and that it is two miles away from the residence of the landlord, and cannot by any means be classed as demesne land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has included in the estate for sale under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the lands referred to and has requested that they be resold to him under the provisions of Section 3 of that Act. The matter will be dealt with in order of priority.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from Mr. Stafford Delmege offering the untenanted land on his estate at Raheen, Knocklong, county Limerick, for sale; if so, how many acres does he intend to sell to them; and whether the land has been inspected with a view to its purchase?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The owner has included some forty-nine acres of untenanted land on the estate at present pending for sale under the Land Purchase Acts. The estate has not yet been reached in order of priority, and it has not been inspected.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a day to allow the House to discuss the present position of land purchase in Ireland; and whether, in the event of the answer being in the negative, he can name a date for the introduction of this year's Irish Estimates?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. At the moment I cannot yet say at what date it will be convenient to take the Irish Estimates.

  Typhoid Epidemic (Athenry, Ireland).
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether any preventative measures have been taken by the Government to prevent a recurrence of the typhoid epidemic which visited and ruined so many families in the bog area of Glones, Athenry, all through last year; whether he is aware that the tenants are
  1382
  living in a wilderness of marsh and bog, and in constant terror of invading disease; whether the Browne estate in the district has been offered to the Commissioners; and whether, in view of the urgency of dealing with this fever-threatened district as soon as possible, the right hon. Gentleman will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board to the exceptional circumstances of this village with a view of removing the people on to the lands of the Browne and Monahan estates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Five cases of typhoid fever which occurred in two families at the place referred to were notified to the Local Government Board during the year 1910. The usual precautionary measures were carried out. It devolves on the sanitary authority and their officers and not upon the Local Government Board to take preventive action in connection with outbreaks of infectious disease. The Glones section of the Browne Estate has been offered to the Congested Districts Board, and the offer will be considered by them. The Monahan estate was offered for sale in 1906, but the offer was declined by the Board.

  Labourers' Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked whether the Local Government Board is aware that several district councils are in the habit of giving undue preference in the letting of labourers' cottages; and whether the Board will direct the attention of all rural district councils in Ireland to the decision of the King's Bench Division that they are bound to frame regulations as directed by Section 29 of the Labourers Act, 1906, and that these regulations are to provide that on the first lettings preference is to be given to the labourers upon whose representations the scheme was based?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are not aware that it is habitual to give undue preference in the letting of labourers' cottages. The Board have called the attention of each district council to the necessity of framing the regulations required by the section referred to, and most of the councils who have been authorised to provide labourers' cottages have already submitted regulations containing the clause regarding first lettings. The Board are in communication with the remaining councils with a view to the requisite regulations being expedited.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the greater part of the district councils throughout Ireland have adopted the additional half-acre scheme under the Labourers' Acts, he will see his way to have a clause inserted in the Labourers' Bill now before Parliament making the scheme compulsory on those few councils who have refused to adopt it heretofore?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. It is far more important that a labourer living in an insanitary hovel should be provided with a new cottage and half an acre than that an additional allotment should be given to one who already enjoys those advantages.

  Cork City Election (Claims for Injuries).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked how many extra policemen were employed in Cork City during the election in December last; how many persons were prosecuted for having committed assaults, for having been guilty of riotous or disorderly conduct; and whether the Chief Secretary will state the amount of the claims for malicious injuries caused during the election?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Five officers and 258 extra police were employed in Cork City during the election; sixty-two persons were prosecuted for the offences named; and the amount of claims for malicious injuries was £62 15s.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether Thomas Tobin, of Ballinanima, Kilfinane, whose claim for a pension has on two occasions been rejected by the Local Government Board on the recommendation of the pension officer, produced before the local committee and the pension officer written statements by "even respectable people, all of whom verified that this man was beyond seventy, and who are prepared to make an affidavit to that effect; and whether, in view of the provision that in cases such as this, where no evidence of age can be found officially, evidence and statements of those to whom the applicant has been known for more than forty or fifty years would be sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman will explain why in this particular case the officer has ignored the evidence of respectable witnesses as well as upsetting the decision of the local committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board do not appear to have received any appeal in this case.
  Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that this man had to satisfy the Local Government Board and the pension officer as to age when his name cannot be found in the Census or local register, and that the Local Government Board and the pension officer absolutely refused to accept the statement of men who had known the applicant during the last forty or fifty years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The matter has not yet been before the Local Government Board.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked what is the objection to grant James Heney, aged seventytwo, of Market Street, Enniskillen, an old age pension, as he is a poor man, and there is no objection as to age?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 6th instant, the Local Government Board, after careful inquiry, considered that Heney's means exceeded the statutory limit.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister, in view of the consensus of opinion in the House on the subject of removing the disabilities under the Old Age Pensions Act in respect of, firstly, disqualification of a man through receipt of poor relief by his wife, and, secondly, disqualification through temporary residence abroad, if he will give the time necessary for the passage into law of a Bill to remove the disqualifications referred to?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I said, in reply to a similar question yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering these matters, and he hopes shortly to make a statement to the House.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked on what grounds Margaret. Harte, of Banagher, Fivemilebourne, Sligo district, No. 292, was deprived of an old age pension notwithstanding the fact that her age was found in the Census of 1851 to be ten years, and on further search in the Record Office she was shown to be two years of age in 1841; and whether, having regard to these facts, she would be granted a pension, together with the amount due since the date of application, 15th June, 1909?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that Margaret Harte's pension was withdrawn

  1385
  by the Local Government Board in June, 1909, on the evidence of the Census of 1851, where she was recorded as ten years old, but that she was afterwards found recorded as two years old in the Census of 1841. She was granted a second pension from 15th July, 1910. There is considerable difficulty in ascertaining at this distance of time the full facts relating to the withdrawal of the first pension; but I will communicate with the hon. Member when my inquiries are complete.
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the number of applicants for old age pensions whose application has been disallowed on the ground of residence for a period of less than twelve months in the previous twenty years outside the United Kingdom, although within the Empire.?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not possible to give this information.

  Foul-Brood in Bees (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked what progress the Irish Board of Agriculture has made in stamping out foul-brood in bees; if there have been any recent cases; and what steps have been taken by the Board of Agriculture to rid the country of this pest?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture have made Regulations under the Bee Pest Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908. Thirty-one County Committees of Agriculture have appointed inspectors and executive officers for the purposes of the Act. No recent cases of the disease have been notified to the Department, but close on 500 eases were dealt with by local authorities during the year ended 30th September last.

  Sugar-beet Growing (Ireland).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked whether the Irish Board of Agriculture have made any experiments on sugar-beet growing; whether they have any special fund for that purpose; and whether, in view of the fact that the soil of Wexford is said to be suitable for the growth of sugar-beet, and that there is a derelict distillery in Wexford town which might, at a small expense, be converted into a sugar factory, there are any funds vested in the Board of Agriculture to give assistance to such a project?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture have made experiments in the cultivation of sugar-beet. They have no
  1386
  special fund for the purpose. In existing circumstances beet cannot, in the opinion of the Department, be grown profitably in Ireland, and they are not prepared to render financial assistance to the establishment of a factory as suggested.

  Untenanted Land (County of Meath).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether he will state the quantity of untenanted land in the county of Meath, according to the returns compiled by the Estates Commissioners?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Return on page 319 of the Appendix to the third Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland, which gives the required information.

  Monaghan County Council (University Scholarships).
  Mr. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the committee of the Clones High School has protested by resolution against the scheme of the Monaghan County Council for University scholarships; if the committee suggested to the county council that, considering the large proportion of Protestant ratepayers, the amount raised should be divided equally between scholarships for Protestants and scholarships for Roman Catholics, as was done in county Donegal; if the Monaghan County Council rejected this proposal on the grounds that they desired to enforce the compulsory teaching of Irish on all students; and if he will ascertain whether it is within the competence of any county council to discriminate in favour of a particular college or university in the matter of scholarships created out of the public rates?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Member has sent me a copy of the resolution which was passed by the Committee of the Clones High School. I have otherwise no knowledge of the matter. I do not know whether or not the committee made the suggestion referred to in the question regarding the equal division of scholarships between Catholics and Protestants, nor, if made, do I know the reply made thereto by the county council. Regarding the power of the county councils to provide scholarships, the power under the Act is in general terms, and, subject to the question of amount and to the provision that there should be no condition of religious qualification or purpose, I see no limitation to its exercise.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it not the fact that this is an expenditure of public money in the way of rates, and will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into these matters in order to see whether the rate was legally raised?

  Police Night Searches (County Galway).
  Mr. DUFFYasked whether instructions have been issued by the police authorities in the district of Turloughmore, Tuam, county Galway, to visit at unseasonable hours the houses of some of the people; can he state under what Act of Parliament the police are empowered to wake up people at night, and ask them to produce their guns for examination; and, having regard to the peaceable state of the district and its immunity from crime, whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the conduct of Sergeant Reidy, of Turlough more, in subjecting respectable people to such annoyance?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such instructions as suggested in the question have been issued. The district in question is not a peaceful one, and when outrages, which are frequent, are committed it becomes the imperative duty of the police to institute exhaustive inquiry (including the examination of guns when necessary) amongst all persons who may be either suspected of committing the offences or who may be thought capable of giving evidence in the connection. I do not think that the inquiry referred to in the last paragraph is necessary.
  Mr. DUFFY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that the police are at liberty to wake up people night after night in a systematic way for the purpose of interrogating them as to where they had been?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, not in a general manner, but in connection with a particular outrage where they have to ascertain who is guilty they are entitled to take those steps.
  Mr. DUFFY: Night after night?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As much as is necessary in order to secure the ends of justice.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether this was done in the case of McClorey in a northern county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police, if they have any definite information, certainly have
  1388
  the right to make the searches required. In the McClorey case the police could obtain no evidence which would justify a search. If they had possessed evidence, they would have had no hesitation in searching houses.
  Mr. JOYCE: That is the case in the west of Ireland, but they hesitate in the north.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it suggested that there is a single district in the north which is otherwise than peaceful.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know of a single district in the north which is not in a peaceful condition.
  Mr. JOYCE: Wait until 12th July, when they get wakened up.

  Royal Irish Constabulary (County Galway).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the police in the district of Turloughmore, Tuam, county Galway, for the past twelve months have subjected respectable people in the district to annoyance; have they received instructions, and, if so, from whom, to visit systematically Mr. Patrick Murray, D.C., and interrogate him as to his whereabouts during the day, cross-examine his family as to the people visiting his licensed premises, and insist upon examining his gun every time they visit his house; and will he explain whether instructions to the same effect have been issued over the county generally?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware that the police in the district referred to have subjected respectable people to annoyance, and no instructions of the nature indicated in the question have been given.

  Magistracy (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he can say on whose recommendation the commission of the peace has been conferred upon Mr. P. J. Weymes, of Mullingar?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This gentleman was appointed upon the recommendation of the lieutenant of the county in the ordinary course.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he can state on whose recommendation the Lord Chancellor acted

  1389
  when he appointed Mr. John Flanigan, of Ballyvalley House, Banbridge, county Down, to the commission of the peace; whether he is aware that Mr. Flanigan was prosecuted and fined at the petty sessions, on the 5th February, 1891, for selling drink on a Sunday, which decision was confirmed by the county court judge on appeal, and in 1900 was compelled to refund certain burial fees to the Banbridge Board of Guardians; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Mr. Flanigan the appointed to the commission of the peace upon the recommendation of the lieutenant of the county. The Lord Chancellor has no information as to the matters stated in the second paragraph of the question. Having regard to the time which has elapsed since the alleged occurrences the Lord Chancellor does not propose to take any action.

  Agricultural Credit Societies Bill.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the Bill which is to be introduced for the establishment of agricultural credit societies in England will apply also to Ireland; whether representatives of the Irish banking interest have been consulted in the matter; and, if so, are they prepared to facilitate this object?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not yet in a position to express an opinion upon the Bill.

  Coronation.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to close the Government workshops, dockyards, and other works under the control of Government departments in order to celebrate the Coronation of His Majesty the King in June next; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to grant holidays to all the permanent and temporary workpeople without loss of pay?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The day appointed for His Majesty's Coronation will be made a bank holiday throughout the United Kingdom. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that proper notice is given to the dockyards?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

  Ne Temere Decree.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Prime Minister, in view of the alarm aroused in the evangelical churches of the United Kingdom by the promulgation of the Ne Temere decree, whether the Government will consider the advisability of using their influence to secure the withdrawal of the decree so far as it affects this kingdom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government would be glad to see the misapprehensions, which the promulgation of the Decree has undoubtedly created in some quarters, authoritatively removed, but it is not a matter in regard to which the machinery of diplomacy is appropriate.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: May I ask if the Registrar-General has not already approached the Archbishop of Westminster in this connection, and whether representations through that channel cannot be strengthened?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.
  Mr. MOORE: What are the misapprehensions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are notorious.

  Royal Scottish Museum (Directorship).
  Mr. AGAR-ROBARTESasked the Prime Minister what are the qualifications of Sir T. Carlaw Martin, late editor of the "Dundee Advertiser," for the directorship of the Royal Scottish Museum?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The directorship of the museum is an administrative post for which specialist qualifications are not required, as each department is in the charge of an expert. Sir Thomas Carlaw Martin was chosen as the most suitable for the appointment, after an exhaustive consideration of all other names.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the salary and what are the duties attached to this onerous office?
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he is a Scotchman who has got this appointment?
  Mr. URE: Yes.

  King's Proposed Visit to India.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister, whether he can inform the House concerning the date of departure, and duration of absence, of His Gracious Majesty on the occasion of his visit to his Indian Empire; and whether any special provision for this event will be laid before Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The arrangements have not yet been definitely concluded, but it is thought probable that His Majesty will be absent from about the middle of November, 1911, till about the end of January, 1912. In answer to the last part of the question, no legislation will be required.

  Eleven O'clock Rule.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Debate on next Monday, 13th March, will include the whole question of naval and military defence, and therefore of the freedom of the British and Irish people, he will suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule, so that the representatives of the people may have a full opportunity of pointing out the dangers to which the people of the United Kingdom and the Empire are exposed?
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister if he would make a Motion to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule on Monday next, so that the already restricted facilities for the discussion of the all-important question of our national defences may thereby be extended?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will deal with this matter in the statement on the course of business which I shall shortly make to the House.

  Home Rule.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that two million pounds are now paid annually from the taxes paid by the inhabitants of Great Britain to make up the sum paid annually towards old age pensions in Ireland; and whether it is proposed that this sum, or any part of it, should continue to be paid by Great Britain when Home Rule is granted to Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot make any statement at present as to proposals which the Government may hereafter make.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have instituted an actuarial investigation into the financial aspects of the Home Rule problem; if so, whether he will state the names of the actuaries engaged; whether, and when, their Report will be made public; and upon which Vote the cost of this service will be borne?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone, namely, that the inquiry referred to is not of a public character, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the particulars or the information desired in the question.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government are keeping all this matter secret so long?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Its results will be known in due course.
  Mr. LONSDALE: On which Vote will the cost of this inquiry fall?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that it will cost anything.
  Mr. MOORE: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that information on this vital subject was before the electors at the last election?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I made no suggestion.

  Beri-Beri (Cases at Galway).
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Chief Secretary whether there are some cases of the disease known as beri-beri at present under treatment in the isolation hospital, Galway; if he will state the number affected with the disease; the numerical strength of the nursing staff, and what provision has been made for their accommodation; whether one of the patients became delirious, and at the time he became so affected if there was any male attendant in the hospital, or how he was controlled; whether the hospital is at times partly surrounded by water, and what means of ingress or egress there is to it from the mainland; and if any precautions have been taken to provide male attendants in the event of any of the other patients becoming delirious?
  Mr. BIRRELL: There are at present four patients from a Norwegian ship under

  1393
  treatment in the intercepting hospital at Galway, three of whom are undoubtedly suffering from beri-beri, whilst the other is under observation. The Local Government Board understand that the patients are in a well-ventilated ward in every way suitable for their treatment, and are under the charge of three qualified nurses, who occupy another ward and have the use of the kitchen. One patient became suddenly delirious and violent, but was got under control by the nurses, and had become quiet before the medical officer arrived. The latter has since procured the assistance of two male attendants, one of whom will at all times be on duty, and the other easily available. The hospital is built on the mainland, with the sea on two sides, and is accessible by foot, car, or boat.

  Evicted Tenants (County Galway).
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary how many claims for reinstatement were sent in to the Estates Commissioners by evicted tenants in the parish of Kinvarra, county Galway, since the Act of 1903 came into law; how many claims were satisfied; and can he indicate, to relieve the anxiety of the people, when the Estates Commissioners expect to be able to deal with the cases still outstanding?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The records of the Estates Commissioners are not kept by parishes. Particulars of the applications from evicted tenants in county Galway, and the manner in which they have been dealt with, will be found in Table XXVII. of the Appendix to the Report of the Estates Commissioners for the year ending 31st March, 1910. The cases outstanding will be dealt with as rapidly as practicable, but I am not in a position to say when they will be reached.
  Mr. DUFFYasked (1) when the applications of Peter Faby and Patrick Quinn, formerly tenants on the Blake-Forster estate, Ballybranagan, Kinvarra, county Galway, were received; is it the intention of the Estates Commissioners to provide for those evicted tenants; and, seeing that their claims and representations are so long ignored, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the cause of the delay; and (2) whether he is aware that the application of James Moylan, an evicted tenant from the Blake Forster estate, Crushea, Kinvarra, county Galway, is listed before the Estates Commissioners for some years back; and if
  1394
  he will explain when the Commissioners expect to be able to deal with the application of Moylan?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: On a point of Order. May I ask whether there is any limit to the number of questions that may be put down for one day by a Member?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Eight.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: That being so, the hon. Member who has asked this question has ten on the Paper.
  Mr. SPEAKER: My attention had not been called to that. I suppose some of them may have been postponed from past days, and, therefore, the matter was overlooked at the Table.
  Mr. DUFFY: That is so.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Under what particular order or rule is the number of questions limited?
  Mr. SPEAKER: By the unwritten law. There is no Standing Order on the point. It has been the custom for a good many years, I think, not to accept more than eight questions from one Member for each question day.
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer these two questions together. The Estates Commissioners do not appear to have received an application for reinstatement from James Moylan. They have received an application from John Moylan, Patrick Quinn, and Peter Fahy for reinstatement in a holding on the estate of the Scottish National Insurance Company, formerly the estate of Blake-Foster, county Galway. This holding was formerly occupied by them jointly, and is now in the occupation of another tenant. The Commissioners, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action in the matter.

  Emigration.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what specific steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to carry into effect the Resolution unanimously agreed to at the last Imperial Conference that the Imperial Government be requested to co-operate with any Colonies desiring immigrants in assisting suitable persons to emigrate?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): In my reply on the 2nd instant I referred the hon.

  1395
  Gentleman to the Note printed on page 25 of Cd. 5273. I have nothing to add to that note.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that no steps have been taken?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have referred the hon. Member to the Note, and I have nothing to add to that.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I press for an answer. Is it not the fact that no steps have been taken?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member wishes to put a further question perhaps he will give notice.

  Canadian Immigration.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he could inform the House the number of immigrants entering Canada from the United States in 1910, and how many were granted homesteads of 160 acres each; how many immigrants entered Canada from the United Kingdom in 1910, and how many were granted homesteads of 160 acres each; and how many immigrants entered Canada from the Continental countries of Europe during 1910, and how many of these were granted homesteads of 160 acres each?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The immigrants from the United States to Canada in the months April to October, 1910, numbered 85,563, and those from the United Kingdom for the same period 90,740. I would suggest that the hon. Member should refer to the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London for the other figures, which are not on record at the Colonial Office.

  Malta (Marriages).
  Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had yet received a report from the Governor at Malta as to an inquiry promised last year with regard to marriages at Malta?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I have received a report, and am satisfied that it would not be practicable to take any steps in the matter.
  Mr. MORTON: May I see a copy of the report?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No; it is confidential.

  Rhodesia (Reprieve of Condemned Native).
  Mr. BAIRDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposed to lay papers relating to the case of the native of Rhodesia who was sentenced to death and recently reprieved by Lord Gladstone?
  Mr. HARCOURT: There are no papers which could be laid beyond those which have already been published in the Press, and I think it is hardly necessary to reprint these.

  Manx Constitutional Reform.
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state when the long promised commission would be appointed to inquire as to the desirability of Manx constitutional reform?
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Home Secretary whether an inquiry into the desirability of modifications being made in the Manx Constitution was to be set up; and, if so, could he state the composition of the body which would make the inquiry and the terms of reference thereto?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Churchill): I have decided to appoint at once a small committee to inquire into the question of Manx constitutional reform, and I expect to be able to announce in a few days the names of the committee and the terms of reference.

  Hen-Roost Robberies (Metropolitan Police District).
  Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was aware that frequent depredations had been recently made by hen-roost robbers in the neighbourhood of Greenford and Perivale; and if he would direct that special attention should be given by the detective department of the Metropolitan Police to discover the offenders, and put an end to these robberies?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The area referred to represents seven and a-half square miles, and it is remarkable that in this area there have been only four cases of fowl-stealing in the last twelve months. In these circumstances I see no reason to conclude that this evil is particular to the localities of Greenford and Perivale.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special instructions

  1397
  to the detectives of his Department to give attention to the movements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

  Released Convict (David Davies).
  Mr. ORMS BY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of his inability to find David Davies, the Dartmoor shepherd, he would withdraw the charge made by him against a person or persons unknown, alleging that they had enticed David Davies away for political purposes; and whether he would give the name of the person or persons suspected by him of this malpractice?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I must refer the hon. Member to my previous replies on this subject.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the name or withdraw the allegation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the bon. Member will study the various replies I have given on the subject, he will find himself in possession of all the information I propose at the present time to give.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not asking for information; I am asking for the withdrawal of an allegation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member is not asking for information, I do not think the matter is one which should be raised at question time.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the allegation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: If the Noble Lord will read the answers I have given to various questions he will see what I have stated. I adhere most fully to what I have said.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask, on a point of Order, whether there is any limit to the number of questions that may be put with regard to a particular individual, and whether it is in order that day after day practically since the beginning of the Session we should have questions regarding Mr. David Davies, a person who I do not believe ever existed?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say exactly when the limit is reached, but the general sense of the House will indicate when it has had enough of the question.

  Pit Ponies (Allegations of Cruelty).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he was aware of the cruelty inflicted upon pit ponies in consequence of the high pressure at which work was now carried on in many of the coal mines in England and Wales, and especially that such ponies were often worked in double shifts with insufficient food and water; and, if so, what steps were being taken by his Department to safeguard these animals against such treatment?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: At my request the Royal Commission on Mines have been inquiring into certain allegations that have been made of ill-treatment of pit ponies, and in their third Report, which has just been presented to Parliament and will shortly be in the hands of Members, they make a series of recommendations to ensure that pit ponies are properly treated. Legislation will be necessary to enable me to give effect to these recommendations, and I am proposing to take the necessary powers in the amending Bill now in course of preparation.

  Coal Mines (Inspection, etc.).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the disaster at the Hulton Colliery, and other similar accidents in recent-years, he was taking any immediate steps to ensure greater safety in coal mines?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: This question of safety in mines was fully discussed in a Debate in this House last June, and I would refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the course of that Debate for a general outline of the policy of the Government in this matter. I may, perhaps, briefly recapitulate the measures which are now in progress. In the first place, the inspectorate is being very largely increased, and a new class of working-men inspectors being created, as I explained to the House in reply to a question on the 23rd November last. In the second place, a comprehensive Bill amending the Coal Mines Regulation Acts and dealing thoroughly with regulations as to safety, etc., in mines is far advanced in preparation, and will, I hope, pass into law this Session. Reports have just been submitted to me by two Committees, one of which has been engaged in revising the rules for the use of electricity in mines, and the other in preparing a draft Order to give effect to the provisions of the Rescue and Aid Bill

  1399
  which the House passed last Session. I hope to be able to act on both reports without delay. I may also mention that I have under consideration the question of the arrangement for the completion of the coal-dust experiments, and that progress is being made with the erection of the new station for the testing of explosives and safety lamps.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Have any of these working-class inspectors yet been appointed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: When are they likely to be?
  Mr. MORRELLasked what was the number of inspectors now employed by the Government for the inspection of coal mines, and how many of these, previous to their appointment as inspectors, had had actual experience of working as colliers in the mines?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Excluding the Chief Inspector and Electrical Inspector of Mines, the number of inspectors for coal mines is at present thirty-seven. A Return was presented to the House in May, 1907, which will give my hon. Friend information as to the occupations of the inspectors then in the service previous to their appointment; but I may say shortly that no person is appointed to be an inspector of mines of the higher grade unless he holds a first-class certificate of competency under the Acts, one of the qualifications for obtaining which is that the candidate must have had five years' practical experience in a mine.
  Mr. MORRELL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to state when the working-class inspectors will be appointed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am moving as rapidly as I can in this matter. I do not think it will be very long before I can make a statement to the House.

  Pretoria Pit Disaster (Distribution of Relief Fund).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could say what was the total amount that had been subscribed to the Pretoria Pit Disaster Fund; how the committee was appointed for the administration of the fund; whether the Government had any
  1400
  control in the matter; and how much of the fund had already been distributed amongst the sufferers?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Government has no control over the administration of this fund, but I have made inquiry of the Mayor of Bolton, who has sent me the following information: The total amount of the fund is £134,580, a striking proof of the generosity of the public and of the keen sympathy and interest which these disasters have aroused among all classes. Under the arrangements which have been made for the amalgamation of the separate Bolton, Liverpool, and Manchester funds, a general committee has been appointed, but the work of investigating claims and administering relief will be entrusted to a sub-committee, consisting of the existing Bolton committee and five members appointed by the general committee on the nomination of the Lord Mayors of Liverpool and Manchester. The total amount distributed so far is £5,360.
  Mr. MORRELL: In view of the fact that a great deal more money has been raised than was originally asked for, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire to what purpose the surplus, if any, will be devoted?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: That question has engaged my attention, because there are several funds in existence and a very considerable surplus. It would appear very desirable that some portion of that surplus should be devoted to the care of persons who are injured, not in great explosions where hundreds of men lose their lives, but in the ordinary small accidents which occur from time to time. I, however, have no power in the matter; but I know that it is engaging the attention of those who are responsible for the funds.

  Whitchurch Provided School (Action of Managers).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to the action of the managers of the Whitchurch Church of England school, near Bristol, who had ordered that the school premises should be closed between morning and afternoon school hours; whether he was aware that this would prevent the children from a distance, who had been previously allowed to eat their dinners and rest in the school, having any resort but the public highroads during the interval; whether the Board of Education has power to intervene in

  1401
  this and similar cases; and, if not, whether he would, by administrative order or otherwise, maintain the rights of parents and children in this matter?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have made inquiries about this matter, and have received a Report from His Majesty's inspector. The facts appear to be as stated. I am informed that the usual number of children staying in the school for dinner was eight, that the managers have taken no steps to provide any other place in which the children may have dinner, and that, as a result apparently of their action three of the children affected have now left the school, while the rest sometimes go home, a distance of about two miles, to dinner, and sometimes eat their dinner outside the school. The inspector was informed by the vicar that the resolution of the managers was passed owing to an inquiry having been made by the local education authority as to what supervision was exercised over children staying at school during the dinner-hour, and that the managers acted as they did in order to avoid responsibility for children during the dinner-hour. The managers appear to have made no effort to ascertain whether it was possible to make arrangements for any of the teachers to superintend the children who stayed for dinner. As a matter of fact, it appears that one of the assistant teachers stays for dinner at the school every day, and would have undertaken the supervision if she had been asked to do so. The managers do not appear to have taken the trouble to make the simple inquiry which would have informed them of this fact. I think that the action of the managers reveals an extraordinary lack of common sense, and I would gladly intervene if I had the power to do so. Since, however, the action of the managers relates to a period outside the school hours it does not appear that the Board have any power to intervene in the matter.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform those persons who have appointed these managers of the result of his report, so that, if possible, some who have more common sense may be appointed?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Has not the education authority got representatives on the Board of Managers? Have their representatives made any protest against this action?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information that I have applies to the managers as a whole; I have given full information to the House.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the education authorities that they should appoint representatives who will look more carefully after their duties?

  Secondary Schools (Superannuation Schemes).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of secondary schools in receipt of Government grants in which a superannuation or pension scheme for the assistant staff is known to be in operation, and the proportion of such schools to the total number of State-aided secondary schools in England and Wales?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total number of State-aided secondary schools in England and Wales on the 31st July, 1910, was 950. The annual staff returns made by the schools, which may not be altogether complete in this respect, show that in eighty-five, or about 9 per cent., of these schools a superannuation or pension scheme for the assistant staff is in operation, though it must not be assumed that the scheme in all cases applies to the whole of the assistant staff.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Having regard to the very small proportion of schools in which such superannuation schemes are in operation, could the Board of Education bring some pressure to bear upon the governors of those schools in order that a pension scheme may be put into force?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will consider the matter.

  Bingley Training College.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether his visit to open the undenominational training college for women at Bingley, on 28th May, 1909, involved an expenditure of £95 4s. 3d., including £22 10s. for tea and £64 19s. 10d. for the platform for his speech; whether this sum has been surcharged to the West Riding education authority by the district auditor; and what steps he proposes to take to compensate those upon whom the expense will fall?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member appears to attribute to me a vulgar curiosity which I will not do him the injury of believing that he would himself indulge. It is not my practice to inquire into the cost of hospitality I receive as a guest, and I am, therefore, unable to reply to the hon. Member's question. On matters of surcharge he should address my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Education, in view of the decision to no longer put the price paid by the Board on the label attached to objects of art at the Victoria and Albert Museum, what steps he can take to inform the public, as taxpayers, as to the amounts paid by them for such purchases?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A list of the principal objects acquired during the year, with their prices, will be found in the last Report of the Victoria and Albert Museum. A similar list will be published either in subsequent Reports or in a separate form.

  Pensions for School Teachers.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the fact that a new scheme of pensions for school teachers has been framed for Scotland, he will immediately consider the propriety of establishing a more satisfactory system for English teachers?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that a new scheme is under consideration. The present conditions with regard to superannuation allowances and annuities for teachers in public elementary schools in England and Wales is engaging my attention. I must remind the hon. Member that an alteration of the present conditions could only be brought about by legislation.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Office has considered the desirability of buying out the landlords whose interests will be affected by the Rosyth naval base at the agricultural value of their land?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the borough of Dunfermline has applied for a Provisional Order extending the borough boundaries so as to include the Rosyth naval
  1404
  base, and that the Earl of Elgin has lodged an objection to the extension on the ground that it means extra taxation to him; and whether the Scottish Office has, either on its own account, or in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared any valuation of the land that would be included in the borough if the extension came into effect, showing what the land was worth before the naval base was started, and what it will be worth when it is completed?
  Mr. URE: I am aware that the burgh of Dunfermline has applied for a Provisional Order of the character referred to, and that Lord Elgin, as a party interested, has, following the ordinary procedure, lodged a petition stating the various grounds on which he objects to the proposed Order. The land in question is, of course, included in the county valuation roll, and it will in due course also be valued in accordance with the provision of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. The Scottish Office has no authority to prepare any other valuation.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is the same landowner who prevented the initiation of a garden city in this locality?
  Mr. URE: No, Sir.

  Congested Districts (Scotland) Board.
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Lord Advocate what steps the Scottish Office propose to take with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board; and whether they will consider the advisability of bringing the Board up to the level of the Irish Board and of extending its authority over the whole of the Highland counties?
  Mr. URE: The report in question is now being considered, and attention given to the question of extension of area. But some time must elapse before any announcement can be made.

  Small-pox and Vaccination (Scotland).
  Dr. H ILLIERasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Scotland, in a recent communication to the Public Health Committee of Edinburgh and Leith, have, in suggesting the provision of further hospital accommodation for small-pox, alleged as one of their reasons for doing so the danger to the community consequent

  1405
  on the slackening of compulsory vaccination; and, if so, what steps the Local Government Board for Scotland propose to take to bring this danger to the notice of other sanitary authorities?
  Mr. URE: The hon. Member's inquiry is probably based on the wording of a Report obtained by the Local Government Board for Scotland which was communicated by them to the local authority of the City of Edinburgh. I am informed that the Board, on the 28th February, 1911, communicated with all the local authorities in Scotland that did not appear to have made provision for the isolation and treatment of cases of small-pox, requesting to be informed of the steps they proposed to take to secure that such provision would be available in the event of a case or cases of small-pox occurring.
  Dr. HILLIER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that in that communication the ground alleged for making this recommendation was the increasing danger of small-pox from the diminution in the number of vaccinations?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in many offices of surveyors of taxes unestablished or temporary clerks in classes C and D, who are subject to a week's notice to leave their employment, have access to all assessments for Income Tax by Special Commissioners; and, if so, whether he will take the necessary steps to secure that all such clerks shall be put upon the establishment?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): In accordance with the instructions, the normal practice is that only established officers deal with special assessments. It may, of course, happen that in a case of emergency an unestablished clerk might be called upon to deal with such a matter; but I may point out that all clerks to surveyors of taxes are sworn to secrecy. I do not propose to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. CARLILE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons making the returns for assessment for Income Tax by the Special Commissioners usually suppose that some degree of secrecy will be maintained with reference to their returns?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is so. That is why the clerks are sworn to secrecy.
  Mr. CARLILE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the swearing to secrecy of young clerks who are subject to one week's notice of dismissal from their work is a suitable arrangement?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; we credit them with the same conscience as other people.

  Merchandise Marks Bill.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Merchandise Marks Bill?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: At the first convenient opportunity, provided that the House is willing to treat the Bill as non-contentious.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: If the Bill is non-contentious do the Government purpose to try and pass it this Session?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already made one or two attempts to do so, but hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House seemed to think it was a contentious Bill, and prevented me from proceeding with it. If the hon. Gentleman can arrange with his Friends to withdraw their opposition I shall only be too glad.

  Rembrandt's Picture, "The Mill."
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state why the official statement issued by the director of the National Gallery respecting Lord Lansdowne's offer to sell to the nation for £95,000 Rembrandt's picture, "The Mill," was only sent to one newspaper; and whether he will direct that similar statements shall in future be sent to the Press as a whole?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that the present practice of the National Gallery authorities, when it is thought desirable to send a notice to the Press, is to send it to "The Times" and to a news agency simultaneously. In the particular case referred to the notice was by an oversight sent to "The Times" only.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the authorities to the oversight, so as to prevent a repetition of it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has

  1407
  been called to the statement issued by the director of the National Gallery that Lord Lansdowne, having been offered a large price for his picture, "The Mill," by Rembrandt, has offered the refusal of the picture, which is still in his possession, to the trustees of the National Gallery, and has promised a donation of £5,000 towards the purchase of the picture for the nation, and that the matter is now under the consideration of the National Gallery Board; whether the price Lord Lansdowne is asking for his picture is £95,000; whether the picture was bought for less than £1,000 by an ancestor of Lord Lansdowne; and whether, before consenting to subscribe any money from national funds towards the purchase of the picture, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the proposal?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Marquess of Lansdowne has informed the Board of Trustees of the National Gallery that he has accepted a firm offer of £100,000 for his "Mill," by Rembrandt, the purchaser having agreed to Lord Lansdowne's condition that the nation should be given a prior option of purchase at this price. Lord Lansdowne has said that he would give £5,000 towards a national purchase, but that the purchaser would not allow the option to remain open long. The National Gallery Board have no exclusive information as to prices formerly given for the picture. The funds at the disposal of the trustees are not sufficient to enable them to acquire the picture, and an appeal to the public for subscriptions in aid of purchase could not, in their opinion, properly be made by them. I do not think it would be desirable, in the event of a subscription being raised by other means for the purchase of the picture, to fetter the discretion of Government by giving the pledge requested in the last sentence of the question.

  Civil Service (Patronage Appointments).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked how many appointments to the Civil Service were made by patronage, under the Order in Council of 4th June, 1870, Clause 7, during the years 1908, 1909, and 1910 respectively; and whether patronage appointments to the Civil Service are governed entirely by that Order, or has it been superseded by later Orders in Council?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Order in Council of 4th June, 1870, has been replaced by
  1408
  the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, which consolidated that and other Orders relating to the public service. Appointments to the Civil Service made otherwise than by open competitive examination are governed by that Order, with the exception of the appointments included in Schedule B. of the Order, which are exempted from the operation of Part I. thereof. It is not possible to distinguish those appointments under Clause 7, which are due to promotion of persons already in the service from appointments under that clause of persons appointed by patronage; and in any case these figures would not take into account "patronage" appointments under Schedule B. of the Order.

  Tobacco Licences (United Kingdom).
  Mr. FELLasked how many licences for the sale of tobacco were issued in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1908, 1909, and 1910?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The number of licences issued to tobacco dealers in the United Kingdom in each of the years ended 31st March, 1908, 1909, and 1910 respectively, was as follows:—

  Year ended 31st March,

  1908

  …

  386,260

  Do.

  do.

  1909

  …

  390,437

  Do.

  do.

  1910

  …

  383,700

  Stephen's Green Park, Dublin.
  Mr. BRADYasked whether it is intended to grant an immediate increase of wages to park keepers, gardeners, labourers, and other subordinates, employed by the Board of Works in the St. Stephen's Green Park, Dublin, seeing that the standard rate of pay for labourers under the Corporation of Dublin is 22s. a week, in addition to clothing, and non-contributory pensions after twenty years' service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin yesterday.

  Transfer Stamps.
  Mr. FELLasked how much security has been given in respect of the 100,000 transfers of land which have had denoting stamps impressed that particulars have been delivered, but where the payment of Increment Duty could not be made as the amount payable has not yet been assessed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It, has not been deemed necessary to require security to be given in any of these cases.
  Mr. FELL: Is there a guarantee or what is it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it is not necessary at all.

  Land Valuation Office (Appointments).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked how many established officers have been appointed to the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue by means of selection without examination, and the total annual salary involved by such appointments; how many unestablished officers have been appointed to the same Department under the same system, and the total annual salary involved by such appointments; how many clerks are included in the answers to questions one and two, respectively, with the total annual salary in each case; and whether the work performed by such clerks is purely clerical, or is of such a nature as to require technical qualifications and experience?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: With regard to the first and second parts of the question, 172 established officers have been appointed at total annual salaries amounting to £76,195, and 1,156 unestablished officers at total annual salaries amounting to £160,193 19s. As regards the third part, the figures include 418 unestablished clerks at total annual salaries amounting to £23,283 7s. Their work is purely clerical.

  Poor Law Statistics.
  Mr. PAGETasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the figures published by the Poor Law Commission showing that the total number of persons given Poor Law relief during the year 1908 was 1,709,436, while the total number of paupers estimated by the customary one-day counts was 753,000, he will arrange to discontinue the publication of estimates based on the one-day counts as conveying an inaccurate impression?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The figures quoted from a volume recently issued by the Poor Law Commission are derived from a Return, relating to the year ended September, 1907, which was published by the Local Government Board in 1908. They relate to the, number of persons who received relief at some time during the course of a year. Those figures
  1410
  are no doubt valuable, but their publication does not seem to me to afford any reason for abandoning the system of obtaining special day-counts of pauperism twice a year, or of founding upon these counts a mean statement of the number of paupers relieved. These counts give the average number of persons who are in receipt of relief at a particular time, and as such do not convey an inaccurate impression.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have periodical reports published?
  Mr. BURNS: I will consider that point. The granting of old age pensions to persons previously disqualified has disturbed, of course, to a considerable extent, the figures.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Would not that make the figures more interesting?
  Mr. BURNS: Matters of figures, as the hon.' Member knows, call for close investigation.

  Food Adulteration.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in the contemplated amendment of the law relating to the adulteration of human foods, he will consider the advisability of including within the term adulteration not merely the addition to any article of food of some extraneous matter of a possibly deleterious character, but also the abstraction from flour, milk, rice, and other natural food products of ingredients of high food value for the sake of improved appearance or increased commercial profit without any intimation to the consumer, by trade description or otherwise, that such abstraction has taken place?
  Mr. BURNS: The subject is one which must be considered in connection with proposals for the amendment of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.

  Plague among Rats.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he was yet in a position to state the results of investigations made into the existence of plague among rats in East Anglia, or does he contemplate presenting a Report to Parliament thereon; and will he consider the advisability of continuing these examinations in the summer and autumn, as such periods are regarded as the most dangerous for the spread of plague infection?
  Mr. BURNS: I am expecting to receive very shortly a report on the investigations referred to. Until the report is before me I am not able to say what steps should be taken with regard to its publication. The procedure to be adopted during the summer and autumn will be carefully considered by me.

  Cottage Rents, Braintree, Essex.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that in the workhouse at Brain-tree, Essex, there are families who would not be there but for their inability to find cottages at rents which the average rural labourer is able to pay; whether he is aware that the matter has become so acute that the medical officer makes particular reference to it in his annual report; whether the rural district council, though fully aware of these circumstances, are neglecting to take steps to deal with them; and whether he contemplates any action in respect thereof?
  Mr. BURNS: My attention has been drawn to the matters referred to, and I am in communication with the rural district council on the subject.

  Liverpool Dock Works (Strike Navvies).
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice: whether his attention has been called to the strike of 700 navvies at the new dock works, Liverpool, and whether the Labour Exchanges have to-day been requested by the Mersey Dock Board to help in supplying men to fill the places of those on strike; and whether he will cause immediate notice to be issued to the Labour Exchange superintendents not to use their Exchanges for the supply of blackleg labour to place the strikers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I have only this moment received the letter containing notice of the question from the hon. Member, and I have not yet had an opportunity of making inquiries, but will do so immediately. I feel very confident if the superintendents themselves have had notice of the strike they have given proper notice of it to those registered on the Exchanges. I shall make inquiries.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: Perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us what is the scheme of business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday there will be a discussion on expenditure on armaments on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Murray Macdonald), and in order that there may be ample opportunity for Debate, I propose to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock rule.
On Tuesday, we shall move the Speaker out of the Chair on Army Estimates.
On Wednesday, we shall take Army Votes A and I.
On Thursday, we shall move the Speaker out of the chair on Navy Votes.
Mr. BALFOUR: I see no provision, so far, in that programme dealing with the Revenue Bill down for to-night. When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go on with it after to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: Not next week. The right hon. Gentleman only asked me about next week.
Mr. BALFOUR: There is no idea, of course, of the Committee stage finishing to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, of course, in view of the very large number of amendments and new clauses, but I hope the Committee will be prepared to sit a little late; but there is no idea of finishing the Committee stage to-night.
Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Adjourned Debate on Nomination of Select Committee [1st March] relating to Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894, and Local Government (Scotland) Acts, 1889 and 1894, and on the Revenue Bill, have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILL PRESENTED.
  MEAT MARKING (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Marking of Imported Meat in Ireland," presented by Mr. FIELD; supported by Mr. Condon, Mr. Crumley, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Kilbride, Captain Donelan, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, and Mr. Devlin; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTS.
Order read for resuming Debate on Question proposed [1st March], "That Mr. Arkwright be a Member of the Select Committee:
That Mr. Bagot, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. C. N. Nicholson, and Sir Luke White be nominated Members of the Select Committee:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
That Three be the quorum:
That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith."—[Master of Elibank.]
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Arkwright be a Member of the Select Committee."
Debate resumed.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate. This Motion raises a most important question. It is part of a Motion to appoint five Members of this House to act along with five Members of the House of Lords upon a Joint Committee. The other House sent down a message to this House, and the President of the Local Government Board moved, and this House passed, a Resolution to agree with the House of Lords upon the same day on which the message was sent down, contrary to every precedent which I know of personally, and contrary to all the precedents—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to go back upon the Motion. The only question now before the House is whether Mr. Arkwright should be one of the Members appointed, and the hon. Member's speech must be confined to that point.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when I complained upon a former occasion that a march had been stolen upon me, by the Motion to agree with the Lords having, contrary to precedent, been moved on the same day on which the Message had been brought down, you said an opportunity would be given to me upon this Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: No, not upon the Motion that Mr. Arkwright should be a Member of the Committee, but upon the Motion accepting the proposal of the Lords setting up the Committee. That Motion was before the House on a previous occasion. It was proposed and passed, and that was the hon. Member's
1414
opportunity. The only opportunity open to the hon. Member now is to canvass the name of this particular hon. Member.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I submit to your ruling, but I am sorry I misunderstood the undertaking I thought you had given to me. I will, however, proceed upon the lines which you have been good enough to indicate. I have, of course, no personal objection to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford, whose name appears in this list. My objection is entirely upon a point of principle, and in order to make my point clear I must remind the House of what this Committee has been appointed to do.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is again going back upon what the House has already decided. On 1st March this matter was discussed, and a record of it appears in the Votes and Proceedings. A Motion was then made for the nomination of a Select Committee, which was carried, and the House made the Order. Thereupon the next Motion is that Mr. Arkwright be a member of that Committee, and that is the matter which we are now discussing.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no discussion upon the earlier Motion.
Mr. SPEAKER: I did not happen to be in the Chair, but I see, according to the Votes and Proceedings, that the matter was carried.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: If I may respectfully say so, I think I was strictly upon the point that Mr. Arkwright be a member of this Committee. In order to show my objection to Mr. Arkwright—to whom I have no personal objection—I must point out what the object of the Committee is. If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to proceed just for one moment you will see that I am really in order in what I am about to say. The object of the Committee is to inquire into the application of a provision contained in the Local Government Acts, consequent upon the alteration of a Local Government area, and to report if any Amendment of that provision is desirable. These questions mainly arise either when a new borough is created, when the boundaries of an existing borough are extended, or when a borough which is part of a county is constituted what we call a county borough. Upon these occasions the financial interests of the county are in conflict with the financial interests of the borough, and no doubt it is well within the

1415
personal experience of many hon. Members that these conflicts have given rise to the most bitter controversies and to the most protracted litigation. This Committee has been formed to consider the principle upon which financial relations between these bodies shall be adjusted. It seems one might almost say elementary justice—in fact, it is so obvious that it scarcely needs to be argued—that upon such a Committee the representation of the boroughs ought not to be overborne by the representation of the counties. It is proposed in the constitution of this Committee that the representation of the boroughs shall be overborne by the county. Is it also proposed that upon this Committee there shall be only one representative of an English borough, and as against that it is proposed that there shall be three representatives of English counties. I understand that the English county councils are already congratulating themselves upon the fact that this Committee is to be so constituted so much in their favour, but possibly they are chuckling a little prematurely. It is true that it is proposed that there shall be a representative of Scotch burghs, but this question concerns England very much more than Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because these questions arise more frequently in England and in a more aggravated form than in Scotland. Surely Scotland can have no objection to the substitution of a borough Member for one of the English county Members. It is true, also, that if this Committee should be constituted as I desire it to be, there would then be three borough representatives as against two county representatives. Surely that cannot be more objectionable than the present proposal, under which there would be three county representatives as against two borough representatives. By my plan the great object will be gained of giving absolute equality as between the English counties and the English boroughs. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen who represent English boroughs in this House. If there are any hon. Members to whom this question is being called to their attention for the first time, or if they are not very conversant with this subject, I ask them respectfully to take it from me that, after going fully into the matter, I am of the opinion that the interests of English boroughs are not adequately protected according to
1416
the plan setting up this Committee which is now before the House. Therefore, in order to give the Government an opportunity of substituting an English borough Member for an English county Member, I propose, before I sit down, to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he is objecting to the only English borough Member, and his remarks are really not relevant to that.
Mr. PICKERSGILL: Surely, that is a technical point. My object is at the very first opportunity to raise the question of the constitution of this Committee in order to give the Government an opportunity of substituting another name. It was suggested to me by a very young Member this morning that my resolution was likely to cause pain to the representatives whose names are mentioned. I venture, as a very old Member, to think there is nothing at all in that point. If I thought that the Motion which I now propose, with your permission to make, would be in any way offensive to those hon. Gentlemen, I certainly would not make it, for I have the greatest respect for every one of the hon. Members whose names are mentioned. As a matter of fact, there is nothing at all offensive in it. It is no great catch to be a member of a Committee of this kind. It is a great-charge and a great burden, and the obligation is not upon the Member who serves, but upon the House which appoints. I beg to move the Adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out that by moving the Adjournment of the Debate the hon. Member prevents the House from discussing the very subject which he wishes discussed., because, after the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is put from the Chair, the only subject for debate is the question of the Adjournment, and the question of the composition of the Committee could not then be discussed.
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): You have decided that; so far as the Local Government Board has had charge of this particular Bill, which is to be remitted to this Joint Committee, everything has been done decently and in order; and the only matter to which I have to refer this afternoon is the point made by my hon. Friend as to whether the interests of the English boroughs—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, by moving the Adjournment of the Debate, has prevented that being discussed. The only question the House has now to consider is whether the Debate should be adjourned.
Question put, "That this Debate be now adjourned."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 354.

Division No. 42.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Adamson, William

Croft, Henry Page

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Gilhooly, James

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Barnes, George N.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bennett-Goldney, Francis

Jowett, Frederick William

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Bird, Alfred

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Sutton, John E.

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

Malcolm, Ian

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Brace, William

Martin, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Bull, Sir William James

Morrell, Philip

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Butcher, J. G.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Winterton, Earl

Castlereagh, Viscount

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Clynes, J. R.

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Wedgwood.

Crean, Eugene

Pointer, Joseph

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Cator, John

Gilmour, Captain John

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

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

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Goldman, C. S.

Addison, Dr. C.

Chancellor, H. G.

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Goldstone, Frank

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S

Grant, J. A.

Alden, Percy

Clancy, John Joseph

Greene, Walter Raymond

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Clive, Percy Archer

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Clough, William

Greig, Colonel J. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Clyde, James Avon

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

Astor, Waldorf

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gulland, John W.

Baird, John Lawrence

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Hackett, J.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Balcarres, Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

Baldwin, Stanley

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Barnston, H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Harris, Henry Percy

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Crions, Sir Charles Alfred

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barton, A. W.

Crumley, Patrick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Beale, William Phipson

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beauchamp, Edward

Dawes, James Arthur

Hayden, John Patrick

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Helmsley, Viscount

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

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

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Bentham, George J.

Doris, William

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hill, Sir Clement

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Duffy, William J.

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Boland, John Pius

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Booth, Frederick Handel

Elverston, H.

Hinds, John

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Hoare, S. J. G.

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Brady, P. J.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Holt, Richard Durning

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Brigg, Sir John

Falconer, J.

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Falle, B. G.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Brunner, John F. L.

Farrell, James Patrick

Hudson, Walter

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Fell, Arthur

Hughes, S. L.

Burke, E. Haviland.

Fenwick, Charles

Hunt, Rowland

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Ffrench, Peter

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Field, William

Ingleby, Holcombe

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fisher, W. Hayes

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

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

Forster, Henry William

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Byles, William Pollard

Gardner, Ernest

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Campion, W. R.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Gibbs, George Abraham

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

1419

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Kellaway, Frederick George

O'Dowd, John

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

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

O'Grady, James

Sheehy, David

Kilbride, Denis

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

Sherwell, Arthur James

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

Shorn, Edward

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Knight, Capt. E. A.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Law, Hugh A.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

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

Parkes, Ebenezer

Spear, John Ward

Leach, Charles

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Stanier, Beville

Levy, Sir Maurice

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Summers, James Woolley

Lloyd, George Ambrose

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

Sykes, Alan John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Perkins, Walter F.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Tannant, Harold John

Logan, John William

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Lundon, T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lyell, Charles Henry

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Lynch, A. A.

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Primrose, Hon. Nell James

Verney, Sir Harry

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

Wadsworth, J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Quitter, William Eley C.

Walker, Col. William Hall

MacGhee, Richard

Radford, G. H.

Walters, John Tudor

Mackinder, Halford J.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Wardle, G. J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Waring, Walter

M'Callum, John M.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

M'Mickilng, Major Gilbert

Reddy, M.

Watt, Henry A.

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Webb, H.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Mathias, Richard

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Meagher, Michael

Rendall, Atheistan

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Richards, Thomas

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Molloy, M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wiles, Thomas

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robinson, Sidney

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Glaude

Mooney, J. J.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

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

Morgan, George Hay

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mount, William Arthur

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wolmer, Viscount

Munro, Robert

Rothschild, Lionel de

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Rowlands, James

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Neilson, Francis

Royds, Edmund

Wood, T. M'Kinion (Glasgow)

Newdegate, F. A.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Yate, Col. C. E.

Newman, John R. P.

Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

St. Maur, Harold

Younger, George

Nicholson Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Nield, Herbert

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Nolan, Joseph

Sanders, Robert A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

Norman, Sir Henry

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Question, "That Mr. Bagot, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. C. N. Nicholson, and Sir Luke White be nominated Members of the Select Committee," put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Arkwright be a Member of the Committee."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am not quite satisfied with the composition of the Committee. I have some doubt whether the hon. Member for Hereford ought to sit upon it. My point is this. These five Gentlemen have to sit with five peers all having equal rights of sitting and voting. When I analyse the composition of the Commons representation I find it includes two Members of the Opposition. I should like to know what the composition of the Peers contribution to the Committee may be, because, if the peers reflect the general
1420
composition of their House, it involves a rather serious situation, as it is possible that the hon. Members for Hereford and Westmoreland may vote with the peers, and the net result would be that the will of the people, as declared through its representatives, would not prevail upon the Committee and this House would be completely humiliated. Its position, to say the least, would be ludicrous. I should like to know who the five peers will be, and whether they will be in harmony with the majority of this House, otherwise the Government will stultify themselves in regard to this Committee. Perhaps the Prime Minister can give me that information?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have not the least idea. I do not even know whether the five peers have yet been nominated.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is that a fair example of what the Prime Minister knows of these proceedings?
Mr. BURNS: Perhaps I may be able to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member, and at the same time to give the House what it is entitled to receive, the personnel of the Joint Committee. Before I do so may I observe that the selection of the five House of Commons representatives was carried out in the usual way, and the Members were not selected because they represented exclusively county divisions or exclusively borough areas. It would be a mistake if a Joint Committee were established on such narrow and at the same time such invidious grounds. It is rather odd that the opposition to the resolution to set up this Joint Committee proceeding, as it does, on the basis that there are not sufficient borough Members, the point should be raised upon the name of a borough Member, i.e., the Member for Hereford, and that it should be suggested that Mr. Arkwright is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the Joint Committee ostensibly because, if he were ruled out, someone more closely associated with a borough might be selected. Now, Mr. Arkwright represents Hereford, which is a borough, and from the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) there is no reason why he should be objected to. It may be convenient for me to give the other four names. Mr. Nicholson represents Doncaster, which, while it is part of a county division, is a division which includes sufficient of a borough to justify his claims being considered. But one of the strongest claims he has, as the House recognises, is that for some time he has been Chairman of the Local Legislation Committee, a qualification which, in the judgment of those responsible for the selection of the names, eminently fits him to be a Member of this Committee. Another Member selected comes from Scotland, Mr. Cameron Corbett, who represents one of the divisions not of a borough but of a great city, and is therefore qualified to consider, I trust impartially, the claims of cities and boroughs. Again, Mr. Bagot, while he does not represent solely a Parliamentary borough, sits for Kendal, and fifty per cent. of his constituency is in the borough of Kendal. The last name is that
1422
of Sir Luke White who represents a county division, and has been for many years, as the House will cheerfully recognise, one of our veterans, and one of our ablest Chairmen, of both Private and Public Bill Committees. I think in view of the qualifications of these five gentlemen no exception can be taken to any or all of them on the ground that they are likely, in the language of our prayer, to show either prejudice or partial affection for any of the questions that may be submitted to them. My hon. and learned Friend wanted to know the personnel of the Lords Deputation. I will read the names which I believe have been agreed upon. They are the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Welby, Lord Newlands, Lord Mersey, and Lord Macdonald. In the judgment of those who are entitled to have their opinions respected on matters of this kind, it seems to me that this is a first-rate team, and I cordially commend it to the House.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

REVENUE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

Duties on Land Values.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Avoidance of contracts for payment of Increment Value Duty by transferee or lessee.)
  Any contract made after the passing of this Act between a transferor and transferee or a lessor and lessee for the payment by the transferee or lessee, as the case may be, of Increment Value Duty, or any expenses incurred in connection with the payment or assessment of the duty, or for the repayment or reimbursement by the transferee or lessee to the transferor or lessor in any manner of any payments made by the transferor or lessor in respect of that duty or any such expenses, shall be void.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS Sir ALFRED CRIPPS moved to insert at the beginning of the Clause the word "Notwithstanding" ["Notwithstanding any contract"]. I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions. First, Is it not the fact that apart from this Clause altogether, apart from the proposals embodied in it, under the principal Act the transferor or the lessor will be liable to pay the amount of the Increment Duty to the Inland Revenue, quite irrespective of whether there is any contract between the transferor and the transferee or the lessor and the lessee. And is it not equally the fact that the amount of the duty will also be entirely independent of any contract between these parties. Therefore, both as regards the persons liable to pay and the amount to be paid they will not be affected even if the contract between the parties is made void. If that is so, there can be no reason whatever in a Clause of this kind seeking to render void an ordinary business contract. I hope the hon. and learned Solictor-General will appreciate what is meant by making contracts of this kind void. It does not mean that they may not be entered into; they may be entered into and observed by honourable men whether they are made void or not, and the only result of making such a contract void is to allow a person who does not take an honourable view of his obligations to escape them. If the contract cannot be enforced in a court of law no power on earth will make such a man comply with the terms of the contract if he desires not to do so. I venture to protest against this principle of seeking to render void certain contracts which are entered into by business people for business reasons, unless there is some good purpose to be served. Personally, I see no such good purpose, and I will ask how the proposal will affect either the person liable or the amount of Increment Duty to be paid. I say it affects neither, and consequently a provision of this kind should not be included in a Clause of this sort. One of the first questions that arises in a court of law is as to the meaning of a Clause of this kind. But what meaning could be given to a Clause like this? I shall be quite willing to withdraw my Amendment if either the Secretary to the Treasury or the Solicitor - General can show any reason whatever for a Clause of this kind. I say it is wholly unnecessary. The Bill as it stands makes the amount of duty payable quite irrespective of whether there is a contract between lessor and lessee and transferor and transferee, except
  1424
  there be some desire to put in a Clause of this kind, rendering an ordinary business contract void which ought to be held binding between the parties. It appears to me that the Clause is wholly inoperative as regards the real purposes of the principal Act. Still, if it can be found that there is any special reason for it I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The reason for drawing the Clause now under discussion is this. The intention of the original Act was to throw upon the lessor or transferor the duty of paying the Increment Duty. But the lessor or the transferor, as the case may be, looking at the question from what he thinks to be a business point of view, and not necessarily caring what the intention of this House was when it passed the original Bill, has endeavoured, in cases which have come to our notice, to transfer the payment of the duty from his shoulders to the shoulders of the lessee or transferee. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will accept our assurance that we have had a large number of cases brought to our notice in which that has been attempted or is desired to be done. We think that the burden of paying this new duty should rest where it was intended to rest by the original Act, on the shoulders of the person who transfers or leases, as the case may be, the land or interest upon which the Increment Duty arises. That is the intention of this clause, and if we were to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman; it is true, it would leave the duty still to be paid by the transferor, but it would enable him to recover it from the lessee or from the transferee after he had nominally paid the duty. We desire to make that impossible as far as we can, in the same way as the Income Tax is made irrecoverable from the tenant. We hope to prevent the recovery from the lessees by the lessor of this Increment Duty, and for that reason only have we drawn the Clause which the Committee are now discussing.
  Mr. BALFOUR: This is a very strange Clause to introduce into a Taxing Bill, because it is not in the power of this House to say who shall pay a tax. Such a matter does not rest with the House nor with the Legislature, and should not be dealt with by Act of Parliament, because it rests upon the laws of supply and demand, and if you are to say on a transfer of any sort from the seller to

  1425
  the buyer how the tax should be paid you cannot settle who shall pay it. You may put in what you like, but the man who transfers and sells will get what he can, and the man to whom the property is transferred must give what he must, and you may frame your Bill as you please, and put in anything you like, but I do not believe that as long as contracts are free you can determine who shall pay the tax. I should like to know whether the Government adopt the opposite view and to ask the Solicitor-General, who often makes most able and interesting speeches on economic questions in this House—I should like to ask him as an economist whether he thinks it is an operative clause; whether he thinks that because the Government choose to put their intentions in the form of an Act of Parliament it will alter the ordinary law of supply and demand, or that it will cease to operate.
  The CHAIRMAN: I should just like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment really is another way of putting what I understand to be the end really aimed at, and the right hon. Gentleman is, it seems to me, now discussing the substance of the Clause which would arise on the question "that the Clause stand part."
  Mr. BALFOUR: I have no doubt, Sir, your ruling is correct. I was following the line of argument of the Mover of the Amendment, and of the Member of the Government who got up to defend the Clause, but if you think the argument should be deferred to a later stage I will postpone it.
  The CHAIRMAN: I only intervened because it seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman was discussing the principles of the Clause, and the right; time to discuss the substance of it would really be on the Question that the Clause should stand part.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: On the point of Order, Sir. I submit that the true meaning and effect of the words in the Clause is to make the contract void. The Bill allows the contract to be made, but you reinstate and reconstitute the provisions of the principal Bill, and, as far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, they will get their money from the transferor or lessor, leaving them to rely on such contract as has been made by the transferee or lessee.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is arguing the substance of the Clause. I think that the discussion of this Amendment ought to be confined to the question of the words proposed to be dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and then we can discuss the principle afterwards.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: May I say a few words in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said? I see the learned Solicitor-General there, but the point which I raised has not been answered. I understand that he would agree with me that, apart from this Clause, the transferor or the lessor is the person liable to the Inland Revenue, and he also agrees with me that, apart from this Clause, the amount of the Increment Duty will be exactly the same, whether there is a contract between the transferor and transferee or not. I take it that he agrees with those two propositions, and therefore so far as the Inland Revenue is concerned this Clause does not affect them one way or another. Under these circumstances, surely one is entitled to protest against introducing into a Clause of this kind voidance of a contract which can be made in regard to a business matter. It can easily be arranged so that the transferee should bear the cost of the transfer. That is a matter of every-day occurrence as regards the transfer of property in this country, and all the right hon. Gentleman has said is that the Government think there should be no power to pass on an obligation of this kind from the transferor to the transferee. Why not? Supposing as a business arrangement the transferee desires to take this obligation, and the two parties concerned desire that he should take it, why should there be any interference?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is the substance of the Clause. I speak with some diffidence about this matter, because I am not a lawyer and the hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished one, but he does seem to me to be discussing the substance of this matter instead of his own Amendment.
  Mr. E. G. PRETYMAN: On the point of Order, Sir. Shall we read these two Amendments on the Paper together as one?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: One Amendment is to leave out the words, "shall be void," at

  1427
  the end of the Clause. I respectfully submit that the leaving out of these words is the point of the argument we are trying to raise that the Clause does propose to void the contract, and my hon. Friend behind me having proposed to omit the words opens up, of course, the question whether a contract ought to be voided or not.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the discussion of the second Amendment is to be included in that of the first Amendment we cannot have the discussion all over again when we come to the question that the Clause should stand part.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understand that the additional words amount to a consequential Amendment which has been put down.
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: And I understand it is in order to argue that this Clause can have no operative effect, and since it can have no operative effect there can be no advantage in voiding the contract.
  The CHAIRMAN: As long as we do not have two discussions on the substance of the Clause. I do not object to the discussion of the substance of the Clause now, but, I have been trying to get rid of the Amendment so that we can discuss the Clause without the technical part of the Amendment.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I would bow at once to your ruling, only it would not be possible to discuss under it the whole gist of the Amendment. The whole gist of my Amendment is that notwithstanding a contract between the transferor and transferee, the obligation should not be put an end to. That, of course, is in direct opposition to the principle of the Clause proposed by the Government, namely, the voidance of the contract. I am the last person who would desire that the Committee should be troubled with discussing a question twice over, and I hope I am not making any suggestion of that kind, but I do not see now what answer has been made to the point which I am discussing that the voidance of the contract here is a mere brutum fulmen, and does not affect the liability of the parties to the Government, nor does it affect the amount to be paid. Under these circumstances the
  1428
  Government are safeguarded. They have their right against the transferor and they have the right of a man between the transferor and transferee. Why should you interfere in a business arrangement entered into between two parties to their mutual convenience? I should agree if it could be shown that the Government were embarrassed or that the duty could be altered, but if no such case is made, why should you interfere with the ordinary case of a mutual contract, more particularly when, although you may render it void, it may still be entered into between honourable people, and the only result will be that someone, whom I will call a rogue or sharp practitioner, might seek to get out of an obligation which he has incurred by pointing to this Clause.
  Mr. BEALE: I really hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, because it is a simpler and more businesslike way of attaining the object which they really have in view. They do not want a man to pass off his obligations to the transferee or lessee, and the Amendment does not do so. The Amendment leaves him primarily liable for it. The Clause only seeks to interfere with a possible contract between the transferor and transferee, or the lessor or lessee, as to who shall pay the transfer. The same thing might easily be done by stating it in the consideration for the contract, or in other ways. Personally I have always been an enemy to this method adopted here of drafting a Bill. I have always been an enemy in ordinary cases of the idea that you can do anything either way by putting in a section in an Act of Parliament that a contract shall be void, because it is always evidence of what the parties wish to arrive at. If you put in a clause of that kind you are very liable to raise the question of whether the whole contract is void, and the question whether you can dissociate this clause and say this clause is void and the whole contract stands good. I think this method should never be adopted if you can possibly do it in any other way, and I do not know of any case when any such expedient has been introduced where you could not have found a more simple and practical way of attaining the same object without running the risk of having to introduce the violent principle that what people are agreed upon is to be absolutely void between them. I hope this Amendment will be accepted, because I believe it will be useful.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask the Government a question. I do not propose to enter into the question after your ruling, Sir, whether this Clause does actually alter the incidence of the tax. That will be discussed on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill. But I should like the Government to say—
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord asks whether we are not to have another discussion on this point on the question that the Clause should stand part, but I understand you to rule that we are only to have one discussion, and that is the general discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: What has happened is this. I thought this was rather a technical point as to the way of putting it, and that it could be disposed of without discussing the substance of the Clause. If that had been the case I should have interfered to keep the Committee away from the wider question, but if it cannot be done in that way then I suggest that, at any rate, we should not have two discussions, which involve the principle of the Clause.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I, if I may respectfully say so, agree with your ruling, and I do not intend to enter upon this question; but the question between the Government and my hon. Friend is really a matter of machinery. As I understand the point now, I personally agree that the Clause cannot possibly have the effect that it is supposed to have, but what I want the Government to show me is why the particular Amendment would make any difference to the alleged effect. I do not know whether they do seriously urge that you can prevent the price of land being affected at will by a stipulation of this kind. It cannot be prevented; the tax can be taken indirectly into consideration. If you cannot do that you cannot prevent the incidence of the tax. But assuming that you can, for the sake of argument, what advantage is there in their case over the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The proposal of my hon. Friend would involve less risk to the general security of the transaction, and what I want to hear from the Government is whether they prefer their words to the words of my hon. Friend?
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask whether this discussion, according to your ruling, will prevent a similar discussion on the proposition that the Clause be omitted?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it not a fact that when we come to the question that the Clause stand part, it can be discussed, and it does not matter what takes place now?
  The CHAIRMAN: The question can be debated, I was only deprecating having two discussions.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I believe it was in consequence of some observations of mine that you made the ruling, and I am most anxious not to press any technical rights which Members may have, but merely to appeal for your guidance in the matter. I am not quite sure, even now, whether you consider that we are discussing the merits of the Clause, or whether we are only discussing in the narrower sense my Friend's Amendment.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I should not have gone further, after your ruling, but I thought my Amendment raised the principle of the Clause. I am bound to say I should have bowed to your ruling on the more technical ground.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment pointed out to me that it does raise the wider issue of the Clause, and, that being the case, I cannot prevent that wider issue being discussed now. I think, on the whole, it perhaps would be more convenient to discuss the wider issue now. The Committee, of course, will understand that I thought at first that we might have got rid of the technical point and then discussed the larger question.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Do I understand that under your present ruling we are to discuss this matter on the wider issue and that a subsequent re-discussion of the principle of the Clause, on the motion that the Clause be omitted, will not be possible?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman must know that I have no power to limit the subsequent discussion on the question that the Clause stand part. It does not rest with me.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: But surely we are entitled to have this discussion limited to the narrow and technical point.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: Surely the Amendment must be discussed in reference to the terms of the Amendment itself, and the Amendment raises the question that these contracts are not to be voided.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I suggest that the most convenient course would be on this Amendment to discuss merely the machinery of the Clause?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have looked carefully into the Amendment, together with the subsequent Amendment, and they raise the wider issue of the Clause, and therefore, if hon. Members desire to discuss the wider issue now, they are in order in doing so. When the Question that the Clause stand part comes to be put they can discuss the matter again. That very often arises, and it cannot be helped, Although I do not like it.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) asked why the Government saw any difficulty in accepting the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend opposite. If it was only a matter of alternative words that suggestion, of course, would have great force, but I think, if the Committee will look, they will see that the things are not really the same. There are three things: One is the law as it stands at this moment, the other is the change which would be effected by the Amendment now moved, and the third is the effect of the new Clause in the Bill. As the law stands at this moment it is, of course, for the lessor or the transferor to pay this duty as between the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer, and I imagine no one suggests, lawyer or layman, that any bargain that is made by the lessor or the transferor or anyone else will alter the fact that it is for the lessor to pay the duty to the Revenue. It is not suggested by the new Clause that there should be a change made in that, neither is it suggested by the Amendment, but the difference is this. If the Amendment, including the consequential Amendment, is accepted nothing will happen, the thing is left exactly as it was before, because what is proposed is to make it part of an Act of Parliament that where the Finance Act requires the lessor to pay the duty the lessor shall pay it. That really is not a matter which should occupy very long because it does not make any change. The Noble Lord fairly says, What is the Government's suggestion? The Government's suggestion, of course, is open to the economic criticism which all similar clauses must be open to. This is by no means the first of its kind. It is very familiar to anyone who has filled an Income Tax form for Schedule A. Whatever bargain you may have made with your landlord, you, as tenant, if you have
  1432
  paid any tax under Schedule A, are entitled to get it out of your landlord, and by the very language of the Income Tax Act, any contract to the contrary is void. All that is desired to be done by this Clause is to do that which has been done in connection with Schedule A. Similar instances could be found in the Tithe Act, if I am not mistaken, and in the Budget, Section 19, in connection with Undeveloped Land Duty. We do not attempt to rip up past bargains preceding the passing of this Act. We only say that a bargain after this date shall not be a binding and effective bargain. That is not going to produce any vast economic change. We are not going to stop the laws of supply and demand. We are going to suggest that we should lay down the same rule in connection with the Increment Duty which has been the law, as far as I remember, in connection with Undeveloped Land Duty. That is the position.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Section 19 the provision there is in exactly the same term as my Amendment, and not in the terms of the Government proposals.
  Sir J. SIMON: The two Amendments together would run "Notwithstanding any contract between the lessor and the lessee, the Increment Value Duty shall be paid by the transferor." That is the existing law, and therefore the hon. and learned Member is moving an Amendment to a new Bill merely in order to preserve the existing law. If the Committee thinks it is desirable to preserve the existing law the right thing to do is to raise that question on the Clause, when I quite agree it will be in order, but at this stage all that is being proposed is the enactment that, notwithstanding a bargain between two subjects, the old law shall still apply and the duty shall be paid by the transferor. Of course, it will be paid by the transferor. No one else can be asked to pay it. That is why I think we may wait till the end of the Clause before we discuss it.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The words of Section 19 as regards Undeveloped Land Duty are that Undeveloped Land Duty shall be borne by the owner, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. That is exactly the terms of my Amendment as regards Increment Duty.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say at the commencement of his speech, that the

  1433
  Amendment had exactly the same effect as the words of the Government.
  Sir J. SIMON: No; what I suggested was, that the Amendment does nothing more than say in effect that we will not have this Clause but will return to the Finance Act of 1909–10.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad I asked, because I did not quite understand. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that, as the Amendment had the same effect as the Clause brought forward by the Government, it was useless to discuss it. Now I understand that is not quite so, and the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it ought to be taken later on on the Question that the Clause stand part. I quite agree to that. One of the arguments brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of the Clause was that there were these words in another part of the Budget. That seems to me a very bad argument. The Budget has been so badly worded that it is open to misapprehension, and if we can find other words which will have the same effect, and those other words are not in the Budget, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to accept them.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry to support the Solicitor General's argument as against that of my bon. Friend behind me, because I desire to ask that the words in Clause 19 of the Budget, which are the same as those proposed by my hon. Friend, should be allowed to apply to this tax also. The very words suggested by my hon. Friend standing in Clause 19 of the Budget are a proof that he has no precedent for this particular argument of his as applied to this case, which is on an entirely different footing, because the Income Tax under Schedule A and the case of the Undeveloped Land Duty are cases of permanent burden at varying amounts placed annually on property, that property being subject to bargains for terms of years between individuals. It is therefore clearly necessary that in regard to a permanent and shifting tax—shifting in amount and permanent in character—where land is held for a term of years between two people, you should have a provision of that kind, and it is covered by the words proposed by my hon. Friend. But here you have a totally different consideration. You have a bargain once for all for the passing of property between one person and another, and I am sure the
  1434
  Solicitor-General will agree with me, that it is objectionable to void contracts if you can avoid it. It must be objectionable. It interferes with the market, and it is a process which should only be undertaken if you desire to obtain some clear advantage from it. I am sure, at any rate, that is a fair way of putting it. There are only two things which could be gamed by this—one to protect the Revenue, and the other to protect the purchaser. It has already been admitted that it cannot affect the Revenue at all. It is clear this is not a matter which has any effect, neither the Amendment or the Clause, on the Revenue. With regard to the purchaser, it will not really affect him at all and if it does it will affect him for evil, because there are only two ways of selling land—one by public auction, and the other by a private treaty. There was a recent sale of land in North Lincolnshire where this clause was introduced. What happened? On account of this Clause it was stated by the auctioneers that, on account of Lord Beauchamp having inserted in his conditions of sale a clause placing the whole burden of this tax upon the purchaser, the sale was entirely abortive, and only one lot was sold. Therefore it is quite obvious that where land is put up for auction in that way the Clause is unnecessary.
  Where land is being sold by private treaty, what will happen? If the vendor desires to insert a clause of this sort, and cannot do it, he will simply add on something to the price. It is perfectly simple. An owner of land is approached, we will say, by a public authority, and is asked to sell a few acres of land for some public purpose. He desires to sell the land at a fair and reasonable price.
  5.0 P.M.
  But having this uncertain burden hanging over him he says, "Very well, I will sell land at a certain price, but you must undertake any burden the State puts upon me as a consequence of selling land to you." They may be willing to agree to that, but if they were not the owner puts £5 or £10 an acre on the price, and probably he will take care to cover himself two or three times over against the duty. The Secretary to the Treasury said that this Clause is proposed on business and practical grounds. I can see no business or practical ground in it at all. It appears to me to be inoperative and unnecessary, and to be complicating the law. It will not protect the vendor, or the purchaser, or the

  1435
  Revenue. I think it would be very much wiser for the Government to leave the thing alone. I believe that the law of supply and demand may be left to work. This Clause introduces unnecessary complications. I agree with the argument used by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beale). I do not think there are many men who have practical knowledge of business connected with the sale and purchase of land in this country who would not tell the Government that this is a Clause introduced in a hurry and without sufficient consideration, and that it would be better to leave the law as it is.
  Mr. SHERWELL: The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) seemed to lay great stress on the fact that the Revenue was safeguarded, and that therefore there was no practical purpose to be served by a Clause of this kind. I venture to suggest that when the principal Act was passed the idea of that Act was two-fold. It was not merely to secure the Revenue, but also to secure that the person properly chargeable with the tax should pay it. The hon. and gallant Member, like preceding speakers in the discussion, argued this case as if it were solely a case arising in connection with the sale of land. They have not met the case—which is the most important case in my estimation—of circumstances where there is a close monopoly in land, where the sale of land is made absolutely impossible and is not allowed, and where the whole transfer of land is under the three-nine lease. I represent a district where there is probably a closer land monopoly than in any other part of the country, and where it is impossible to buy a single yard of land and where it can only be leased. The only way in which a working man can procure a site is by leasing it on a three-nine lease. When the principal Act was passed, on certain estates in that particular district the lessors or transferrors at once introduced a new clause into their leases, passing on the tax, which this House clearly intended should fall on the land owner, to the transferee or lessee, with the result that a man who has not received the benefit of the increment is called upon to pay the tax upon the increment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Noble Lord said that the ordinary economic laws must work, and that this tax will be paid by the lessee, whatever this House may enact.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not say whether it would be paid by the lessee or the lessor, but that anything this House could do could make no difference one way or the other.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I myself hold it should be provided that the tax should be deductable from the ground rent, as in the case of Income Tax. I would make it more specific. I venture to think that in districts where there is a close monopoly in the holding of land, this Clause will protect the lessee in respect of a tax which the House has intended to be borne by the landowner. It may be argued that if the landowner pays the tax, the result will be to raise the price of land. The hon. Member did not bear in mind the fact that under the three-nine leases land cannot be put up in price without increasing the value of the land in the neighbourhood. I most certainly hope that the Government will stick to the Clause in the Bill.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) forgot the fact that under the Finance Act long leaseholders are treated as freeholders, and are to be taxed accordingly. I think that must make a very great difference in his argument. I understand that those working-men in Huddersfield who have taken long leases will not be affected in any way by any contract of this kind whether—
  Mr. SHERWELL: I was speaking of lessees who take out leases after the passing of this Act.
  Mr. J. HOPE: But under the Act they are to be deemed freeholders, and if any increment comes along, they will have to pay the tax on it.
  Mr. SHERWELL: My point is that, if after three or five years' time, a working-man takes a lease, he will not be liable for the Increment Duty on the increased value which has accrued up to that date. Of course, he will be liable to all Increment Duty while holding the land.
  Mr. J. HOPE: I do not think that was the impression which the hon. Gentleman at first conveyed. Undoubtedly they will be subject to the duty on the increment which accrues when they hold land under these long leases. I want to know whether the Secretary to the Treasury in dealing with the matter considered the danger which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Beale). He called attention to the

  1437
  danger which this Clause in its present shape would have, and especially to the danger of the words "shall be void" at the end. I believe that in a contract of sale or a preliminary agreement for a lease a provision of this kind will be one of many. Supposing it got into a contract of sale and that afterwards the lessee or transferee finds that the provision is null and void, and he returns it, the lessor or transferor will be very likely to say, "As this one provision is void the whole of the contract will be void." The provisions of the contract may be likely to be so tied up that it will be difficult to disentangle one provision from all the rest. Then, supposing that the transferor or lessor thought better of a bargain which he had made, he would have a very good lever for getting rid of it if the law says that one clause is null and void. This would probably lead to a very great deal of costly litigation
  Colonel GREIG: The very point raised by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield (Mr. Hope) will occur in conveyancing transactions unless the Clause as it appears in this Bill is passed. What is happening at the present time? I speak for many conveyancers who know the facts. There are already inserted provisions which are intended to throw upon the transferee or the lessee this very tax. I had a case myself the other day in which I inserted a provision in the conditions of sale on behalf of the vendor. It was objected to by the solicitor because he was acting for a trustee. Unless this Clause is passed, you will have in the precedent books conflicting views, and every conveyancer who comes to draw up a contract of sale or a ground lease will not know whether he should put in this provision or leave it out. The best way will be to say clearly that if such a provision is put in a contract it will be void.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I listened with great attention to what fell from the Solicitor-General. It did not seem to me that the Government contention came to more than this. The clause is only meant to stop contracts for indirect payment as distinct from stopping contracts for direct payment.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: That is not the point I made at all. The point I made is that if two taxpayers, A and B, choose to make an agrement with one another to pay one another's tax, that does not make any difference to the Revenue as regards the man who has to pay.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Alfred Cripps) provides that the transferor would still pay the tax. The Solicitor-General says he does that in any case. If that were plain on the face of the contract all the object the Government have in view would be served. You cannot prevent the price rising or falling in a particular case. All you can do is to say that the transferor must be the actual agent to pay the tax to the Government. All my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment does is to ensure that there shall be no evasion of what is the law already. You cannot affect realities. In pretending that they can do so the Government are only indulging in a muddling instance of mediæval finance.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: I wish to say a word as to what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Norton-Griffiths). The Government have not met at all the point taken by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. In this Clause it is provided that any contract made after the passing of the Act shall under certain circumstances be void. I would ask what the Solicitor-General meant when he referred to "contract." What is the contract? Is a lease to be voided if it contains a stipulation with reference to the payment of Increment Duty, or is it only the stipulation that shall be void, while the rest of the contract stands? I am sure the Solicitor-General will not suggest that a stipulation can be taken out of a contract and treated as a separate contract. You can only contract as a whole. I think we should be careful not to enact that where land leases contain this stipulation they may afterwards be rendered void if the lessor or the lessee says, "Here is the Statute which says that the lease is void." If it is intended by the Government to provide not that the contract shall be void, but merely that one particular stipulation in the contract shall be void, I can only say that they have taken the most cumbersome way of effecting that object which can be conceived, and one which is inaccurate in the terms used, and will lead to a result that was never intended. I suggest that the Clause as it stands does not carry out what was intended, and will have disastrous effects if adopted.
  Question put, "That the word 'Notwithstanding' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 272.

  Division No. 43.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gilhooly, James

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pole-Carew. Sir R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E

  Barnston, Harry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Quitter, William Eley C.

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Beale, William Phipson

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Royds, Edmund

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bird, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Spear, John Ward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Swift, Rigby

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Sykes, Alan John

  Cator, John

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lamnson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clyde, James Avon

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts. Watford)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Moysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Moore, William

  Winterton, Earl

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Fell, Arthur

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Younger, George

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Sanders.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Adamson, William

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Boland, John Plus

  Clough, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R.

  Alden, Percy

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Armitage, Robert

  Brigg, Sir John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk. North)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnes, George N.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Byles, William Pollard

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Delany, William

  Barton, William

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

  Devlin, Joseph

  1440

  1441

  Dewar, Sir J. A

  Leach, Charles

  Reddy, Michael

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Logan, John William

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Doris, William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elverston, Harold

  MacGhee, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macveagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Falconer, James

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rowlands, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  St. Maur, Harold

  Fenwick, Charles

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

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

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Field, William

  Martin, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Sheehy, David

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mathias, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Furness, Stephen

  Meagher, Michael

  Shortt, Edward

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Glanville, Harold James

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molloy, Michael

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Snowden, Philip

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Summers, James Woolley

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

  Morgan, Georgo Hay

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hackett, John

  Munro, Robert

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Neilson, Francis

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Toulmin, George

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wadsworth, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Wardle, G. J.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Malley, William

  Waring, Walter

  Hinds, John

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Webb, H.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Johnson, William

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wiles, Thomas

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvenshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lambert, Ernest H. (Devon, Molton)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Lansbury, George

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

  Law, Hugh A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I wish to raise a point of Order. While the Division was being taken the door leading into the Ayes Lobby was closed before the door of the Noes Lobby, and I and several other Members, I think about fifty, but at any rate a large number, wished to vote in the Ayes Lobby, and were unable to get in. We could have got into the
  1442
  Noes Lobby, but as our object was to vote in the Ayes Lobby we did not go into the Noes Lobby. When we tried to get into the Ayes Lobby at that door and found it locked, we came up here and tried to get in behind the Speaker's Chair, and found the door there locked. In the circumstances I feel bound to submit that the Division ought to be taken again, because

  1443
  a large number of Members were unable to record their votes owing to the fact that the doors were locked.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the Division cannot be taken again. I am extremely sorry to hear that not only the hon. Member, but also various other hon. Members were unable to vote on this occasion. It is not the fact, however, that the doors of the Ayes Lobby are closed before the doors of the Noes Lobby. The door in the corner leading into the Ayes Lobby is closed before the door leading into the Noes Lobby; but behind the Chair the door leading into the Noes Lobby is closed before the door leading into the Ayes Lobby, so that the position there is reversed. The full time was given on this occasion.
  Sir F. BANBURY: A Member wishing to vote in the Noes Lobby can go in at once through the large door, while a Member voting in the Ayes Lobby has to enter through the little door, unless he comes behind the Speaker's chair, which takes time. If that little door is closed earlier than the other door it really precludes Members who are outside the House getting into the Ayes Lobby at all. I would venture to suggest in the interests of business that it would be better if that door were left unlocked to the last, so that Members coming in should have every facility for voting in the Ayes Lobby.
  The CHAIRMAN: That matter can be considered. I cannot, of course, presume to deal with it, because I am not the authority in the matter, but I may point out with reference to the hon. Baronet's remarks that he can get into the Noes Lobby by the large door when the small door is closed, that the reverse is the case behind the Speaker's chair.
  Sir F. BANBURY: How can you get behind the Speaker's chair? The larger number of Members are outside in the smoking-room or in other places, at least, the Members of my side of the House are. It is really a question of the convenience of the House. Those Members who are outside sometimes cannot get behind the Speaker's chair in time, and therefore it is necessary when they come they should not be put at a disadvantage because they happen for a moment to be voting in the Ayes Lobby. As a rule Members on my side vote in the Noes Lobby, so that they are not at a disadvantage, and it is purely
  1444
  in the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite that I make the suggestion.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I would point out that a special disability is cast upon Members who desire to go to the Aye Lobby, because hon. Members are coming out of the House, either having voted, or are not voting at all. To my knowledge they blocked the two doors leading to the outer Lobby. For myself, I found it impossible to enter when I came to the doors, the entrance being absolutely full, and many other Members besides myself could not get access to the House at all. I presume that the doors were locked whilst we were held up there, and unless some special arrangement is made it is impossible in such conditions to enter the Aye Lobby.
  The CHAIRMAN: I can only promise consideration. It is the first complaint of this kind that has occurred for quite a long time.
  Mr. FELL: I have a small Amendment to move, which I hope will be taken into consideration, in order to meet cases of great hardship felt by a great many. I move, after the words "by the transferee or lessee," to insert the words" except for a valuable consideration."
  The case I have in view is where a man sells his property for a certain price and desires to get his money to take away with him to the Colonies, or for some other investment. Under this Bill, he would have to wait six months at least before he could draw the money, or could learn how much he would receive to invest. He cannot pay any sum to the purchaser in respect of the Increment Duty in order to get the liability off his shoulders. I do not think if he took a reduced price it would be meeting the case, because that would be to some extent defrauding the Government, who would get less Increment Duty on the reduced price. The Government are entitled to Increment Duty on the increased value of this property. It is not known what that is. The vendor wishes to ascertain how much he will have to invest or how much he can take away with him, but under the Bill as it stands, you prevent him from making any arrangement. If he could go to the purchaser and say that he will give him £10 to settle any question of Increment Duty in the future that perhaps might meet the case. A man might sell his property for a thousand pounds, but there might be some Increment

  1445
  Duty on the site value of that house, and the vendor might offer a sum to the purchaser to settle any question of Increment Duty. There are hundreds and thousands of these cases, and it may be that the owners of property when they sell will not ascertain for many years what will be the sum they will realise, and they will not be able to make any arrangements such as that of paying a reasonable sum to the purchaser on the latter agreeing to pay the Increment Duty that may arise on the property he has purchased. If the vendor is not allowed to get clear of his property by the payment of a sum of money which would enable him to receive the purchase money to take away with him or to invest, then he will be subject to hardship, and may have to wait a considerable time before he ascertains how much he is to receive. I hope the Government will be able to meet this point, if not by the words which I propose, then by some others, whereby a man would be able to get himself out of the difficulty in which, under the Bill as it stands, he will find himself.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposal which the hon. Gentleman makes would defeat that which is contained in the Clause under discussion. It is quite clear that if every other contract which would otherwise be void were to be made of force and effect by the insertion of these words, "except for a valuable consideration," then, of course, they would have to be inserted in every contract, which would be at once driving a coach-and-four through the whole of the Clause as it stands. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: If my hon. Friend has pointed out a practical blot, I do not think it is met by his being told that his Amendment, if accepted, would permit a coach-and-four to be driven through the Clause. If the Amendment has no effect in altering or controlling the incidence of the tax, if the incidence of the tax is determined by causes outside the control and purview of this House, then I think my hon. Friend's Amendment should receive some consideration.
  Earl WINTERTON: I want to give a specific case which will come under what has been said by my hon. Friend. I do not say that his Amendment is the best form of meeting the difficulty, and, therefore, in what the Financial Secretary said on that point, he has a certain amount of right on his side. Still, cases of great
  1446
  hardship will arise where the seller is unable to ascertain what amount he will obtain for his property. The particular case which I have in mind is that where property jointly held is to be sold—that is to say, a property in which A has the majority of the farm buildings, and B holds the farmhouse and the rest of the farm. A and B agree to sell on the understanding that each should get a minimum sum. Under the Bill as it stands it would be impossible for them to know what would be the net amount they would receive, owing to this question of the duty, for some two or three months after the sale has been effected. I think it is very hard that in a case of that kind the sellers should not have some opportunity of contracting out of their liabilities in respect of Increment Duty, if by so doing they do not in any way injure the position of the revenue. As I understand my hon. Friend's Amendment, the position of the revenue will not be affected. I, therefore, support what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that if there is this difficulty—and I have given an example of it—it is no answer to say that this Amendment does not deal with it. Perhaps the Law Officers of the Crown may be able to give some hint or suggestion as to how the difficulty can be got over.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I support the Amendment. Although we can appreciate what the Government are trying to do by this Clause, namely, to put the duty on the transferor or the lessor, yet I think that if the transferor and transferee, or the lessor and lessee agree, as an additional term of the contract that the former shall pay to the latter a certain sum in respect of Increment Duty, surely that is an agreement which is not against public policy, nor is it one in which the Government could wish to protect the transferee. There may be cases such as the Noble Lord has just spoken of where it is the intention and deliberate wish of the transferee or the lessee to assume this burden as part of the price. Surely the Government in these cases need not say that in no such circumstances and in no such cases should a contract of this sort be made. I am inclined to think that the words of the Amendment are not sufficient for their purpose, because if you insert the words "except far a valuable consideration," then I think there will be, as the Secretary to the Treasury has said, no exception at all to the rule. But there are

  1447
  specific cases such as that mentioned by the Noble Earl where the transferee or the lessee are willing, as a part of the bargain, to assume the liability. Why should he not be allowed to assume the liability?
  Colonel GREIG: If these words were inserted in the Clause they would immediately introduce an enormous amount of uncertainty and inconvenience in conveyancing. First of all, if you insert the words "except for valuable consideration," the question will arise on every occasion whether there is a contract for good or valuable consideration. If you insert these words you do not cover the whole field of contract.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I would like to suggest that the inconvenience to conveyancers is not of so much importance to us as the convenience of the citizens. The whole thing arises out of the absurd policy of trying to set up a practice before you have got the machinery ready. You have a tax on increment value, but you have no earthly means of knowing what it is, nor are you within approach of finding out what the original site value is. The original site value is being ascertained all over the country, and there will be hundreds of cases in which those who sell their property will not be able to ascertain the sum they are to receive for a very long time. It will take years before this valuation is made all over the country, and the transaction will not be completed until the tax collecting authorities are able to catch up the arrears of their work. If the machinery to be used were of such a character that it could be pretty certain that within six weeks of the sale the Increment Duty could be assessed then I do not think there would be any need for this Amendment. But it may not be assessed, as I have said, for a very long time. I am sure the hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is a very severe grievance that the seller will not be able for a very long time to ascertain how much money he is going to receive for his property. If the Government do not meet the point they will show that they are actually unwilling even to consider the inconvenience they are causing.
  Mr. BEALE: I would point out that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment only goes to the subject matter of the previous discussion. Let the hon. Gentleman recollect that the lease or conveyance is itself a consideration. The real effect of the Amendment, accepting as I must do the
  1448
  Clause as it stands, although I protested against it, is that the contract for the payment of duty, if it is on a lease or sale shall be void, and yet, that it shall not be void if it is part of the consideration for a lease or sale. I could not support an Amendment to that effect.
  Mr. SANDERS: I rise to support the Amendment because I believe if these words were inserted, they would be a real benefit to the jobbing builder. When this Clause was drafted I have no doubt that the person who was in the mind of the Government was not the builder, but the large landowner who sells a big estate. For one transaction of that kind there are hundreds of transactions all over the country in which the small jobbing builder is selling single houses. It is to him that this would be a particular convenience. The difficulty of the jobbing builder at present, and undoubtedly one of the greatest effects in the Act, is that not only having to pay the tax, but not knowing what he has got to pay. The Amendment would, to a certain extent, relieve that uncertainty, which is having such a disastrous effect on the building trade at the present time. I put it to the Government, it would be in their own interests to accept the Amendment, because as pointed out by the mover of the Amendment, if a builder sells houses and goes abroad, where are the Government going to look for their Increment Duty? It may be six months before they have ascertained how much that is going to be. If they allow for valuable consideration, the liability for that duty to pass on, they would be able to get it from the man who having bought the house, ipso facto remains in the country, or at all events, has a valuable asset in the country. I hope the Government will accept the principle of the Amendment.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: The speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire makes me think that the whole of this Clause is an extremely silly Clause. I wonder what would happen supposing a man sold a bit of property for £1,000, and if it would not be discovered for weeks or months what duty he would have to pay, and if he wished to go to Canada or the United States. What is the Government going to do in a case of that kind? Is the man to be kept in the country until the duty is paid, or can he go off? It seems to me that the Government have got this matter into a great mess. They brought forward their Bill, and rushed it through the

  1449
  House, and we had to sit night after night discussing it, when it was closured by the gag.
  The CHAIRMAN: That remark is totally irrelevant, and also out of order in itself.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I am sorry, and I apologise. Unless the Government give way on this point they would find it extremely difficult to obtain the money which they hope to get out of every person who sells land. At the eleventh hour even, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the red tape which there is in this first Clause, on their own account, as well as on the account of others.
  Mr. BEALE: The hon. Member seems to think that if it was in the contract between the transferor and the transferee that the transferee would pay, this would pass on the liability to the transferee as between him and the Government, but that contract could not have that effect; it would leave the transferor primarily liable to the Government.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The hon. Gentleman has given us a most conclusive reason for accepting this Amendment. He has pointed out that if this Amendment is adopted the Government is in no way injured, and can have recourse to the persons to whom it wants to have recourse in order to get the money. What we point out is, that while the Government is in no way prejudiced, the seller and the purchaser are convenienced. Was there ever a more flimsy pretext offered by a Government for rejecting such a proposal? The right hon. Gentleman does not say it is going to hurt the Government, or that it is going to benefit the public. All he says is, "By this Amendment you make a hole in my Clause." I have no objection to make a hole in his Clause. Let me take the case of a man who sells a bit of land to another. Owing to the imperfections of the Act, and its complex and complicated character, and to the difficulty of establishing machinery to find out what the duty is, it may be years, and it certainly will be months, before it can be ascertained what the Increment Duty is. Under those circumstances, it is very natural for the purchaser and the seller to lay their heads together. The seller will say to the purchaser, "You are going into this land, and will you undertake the payment of this duty?" A proper business arrangement can be made that the man who is going into the possession of the land, should contract as
  1450
  between him and the man who sells, that when the duty is ascertained, he, the purchaser, will pay as between him and the seller. To that no answer is given, except that it will interfere with this Clause. I submit we are entitled to have a better reason than that, and unless the Government can show that in some way the proposal is injurious either to the Revenue or the public then I say that hon. Members on both sides ought to help in passing the Amendment.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to delay the Committee, as I am anxious that there should be discussion on the Licensing Clauses, but I should like to have an answer to the case which I put, and which I actually know of. I am quite willing to await an answer on a subsequent Amendment. Up to the present, neither the right hon. Gentleman who spoke, nor the law officers have given any indication of any willingness to answer the case. I think I have a grievance in the matter. I want information on the question, and I do not mind saying that I am personally interested in the transaction of which I spoke. I have endeavoured to obtain information outside, but no one has yet been able to give me the information. Therefore I am compelled to ask it on this Clause from the right hon. Gentleman. It is a case of A and B, who decide to sell property which they have held more or less in common. It is a series of farms, A's property is interlaced in rather a remarkable way with that of B. After long negotiations, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the position, both decide to sell. B will only agree to an actual sale only if he obtain a certain minimum. They proceed to take steps to sell, and they have offers, but owing to the fact that no one knows what the Increment Duty will be as the machinery is not in working order, they are unable to know what the minimum net price will be. I say it is nothing short of monstrous that a transaction and what should be a contract of that kind is held up because of the unwillingness or inability of the Government to place the machinery of the Act in a sufficiently forward state to enable a decision to be arrived at. I respectfully ask what is the remedy of A and B in this case, and how are they to arrive at the amount?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is very clear. The Noble Lord suggests that there was greater advantage to the transferor and transferee in this case coming to an agreement, if there is a burden put on the

  1451
  transferee rather than upon the transferor. I do not see that there would be any advantages greater in one case than the other.
  Earl WINTERTON: The trouble is that the burden is undefined and no one knows what it is. If the purchaser is willing to take it on trust at a certain figure the sale can be affected, but that is not permitted by the Clause.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not see the bearing of this question on the Amendment under discussion. The question is, whether or not valuable consideration shall be put in the contract. I do not really see that the question bears on that particular Amendment.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The difficulty is at the present moment, that the transferee cannot undertake that contract.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think that the Government have met the case of a man who sells his property to go abroad. A man in that position wants to wind up his affairs and know his capital before he goes to the country to which he is emigrating. The Clause is bad from the point of view of the Government, because they have no security that Increment Duty will be paid. Unless there are some words
  inserted that difficulty will remain. If they are not inserted this Clause will simply be evaded by a double contract. The seller will make a contract with his lawyer, supposing he is going away, that the lawyer shall be responsible for the payment of the Increment Duty, and then the lawyer in turn, country lawyers, will get some security from the buyer in the event of the duty being more than he anticipates. The effect of the Clause therefore will be that you will have two separate contracts instead of one. There is nothing to prevent that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing a man sells his house, which is all the property he has in this kingdom, and, having been paid the price of the house, goes away. Can the Government obtain the Increment Duty from the purchaser or not, in the event of not being able to do so what is going to happen?
  Earl WINTERTON: Can we have an answer to the important question raised by the hon. Gentleman? If we cannot, then we can only assume that it would be one of the many bad debts made by the present Government.
  Question put. "That the proposed words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 279.

  Division No. 44.]

  AYES.

  [6.0 p.m.

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Gretton, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Guinness, Hon W. E.

  Anstruther Gray, Major William

  Cave, George

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Ashley, W. W.

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Baird, J. L.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Crean, Eugene

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Barnston, Harry

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Jessel, Captain, H. M.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Bird, A.

  Forster, Henry William

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Kerry, Earl of

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Bull, Sir. William James

  Gilhooly, James

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Larmor, Sir J

  Burgoyne, A. H

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Campion, William Robert

  Grant, J. A.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Greene, Walter Raymond

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sykes, Alan John

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Quitter, William Eley C.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Moore, William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Nield, Herbert

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wood, Hen. E. F. L. (Ripon)

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Younger, George

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Fell and Dr. Hillier.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Swift, Rigby

  Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hayward, Evan

  Adamson, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hinds, John

  Alden, Percy

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

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Armitage, Robert

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

  Delany, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  Johnson, W.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Doris, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barry, Redmond John

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Elverston, H.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molten)

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Birrell, Rt. Hen. Augustine

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

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

  Boland, John Plus

  Falconer, J.

  Leach, Charles

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Farrell James Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Ferens, T. R.

  Logan, John William

  Brady, P. J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lunden, Thomas

  Brigg, Sir John

  Field, William

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacGhee, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Furness, Stephen

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Kean, John

  Cameron, Robert

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  M'Laren, Henry Duncan (Leics.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Martin, Hon. J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Clough, William

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

  Mathias, Richard

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molloy, M.

  1454

  1455

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Sutton, John E.

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Radford, G. H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rainy, A. Rowland

  Tennant, Harold John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Munro, R.

  Reddy, M.

  Toulmin, George

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Neilson, Francis

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wadsworth, J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wardle, G. J.

  O'Grady, James

  Robinson, Sidney

  Waring, Walter

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Watt, Henry A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Webb, H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Rowlands, James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  St. Maur, Harold

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Shortt, Edward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Snowden, Philip

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

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

  Summers, James Woolley

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I confess that this Clause is surprising both in its contents and in the light which it reflects on the intelligence of the Government who proposes it. We have here a Government who are never tired of professing that they are economists. They stand up and thank Heaven constantly that they are not even as Tariff Reformers, who believe that the incidence of taxation can be thrown on the foreigner, and yet they come forward with a Clause which is wholly meaningless unless they believe that you can regulate prices by Act of Parliament. I had always thought that they held the view that the idea of regulating taxes by law was a delusion, but it is obvious that the Government do not take that view, because they propound a Clause the only operative effect of which, if it has any, must be to change the incidence of the tax by regulating the price. Suppose a piece of land is worth £1,000, and that the additional expenses, including the tax, come to £40, either the value of the land is fully accounted for by the price of £1,000 or it is not. If it is the rack price, by no possibility can the vendor escape paying the tax. He cannot charge more than the utmost he can get, and if
  1456
  the utmost he can get is £1,000, he must, whatever happens, pay the extra £40, whether this Clause is passed or whether it is not. On the other hand if he is an easy-going man, who does not trouble about the matter, and £1,000 is not the full price that he can get, if he can obtain £40 more, and wishes to do so, no statutory regulation can possibly prevent him from doing so. Why, then, are you to stultify Parliament in the eyes of the whole community by passing a ridiculous enactment of this kind? The Government might just as well propound a clause saying that the tax should always be paid by the free importer, or Tariff Reformers insert in a Tariff Reform Budget a clause providing that the foreigner should always pay the tax. You cannot prevent a man from charging as high a price as he can obtain; therefore you cannot prevent the incidence of the tax going where it will. If the vendor is getting the highest price that he can obtain he cannot escape the tax; but if he is able to charge more you cannot prevent him from throwing the tax on somebody else. The consequence is that this enactment is wholly illusory. I wonder why it is put in the Bill. One can hardly suppose that the Government wished to display their un-acquaintance with economics. The Solicitor-General brought in as an analogy

  1457
  the provision relating to Income Tax. There is no analogy whatever. This is a tax upon a transference; therefore it is a tax which comes into relation with price, and unless it is maintained that you can regulate price by law, it is obvious that this enactment is not analogous with the Income Tax Acts at all.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Rent depends on contract, and Income Tax is subtracted from rent.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: But it is conceivable, of course, that it does not so arise. When you are dealing with a thing which is a matter of actual practice it is perfectly easy to get round a provision of this sort. All these matters are the commonplaces of economics. Why do the Government put in the provision at all? I am afraid that they are not so silly as they would have us believe. They know perfectly well, as we do, that this provision is nonsense. It has no operative effect at all. They wish to play to the shilling gallery. They desire to have the opportunity of saying, "We are a rigorous Government, which exacts the last penny from the landlord," and so get a little credit for it—and, perhaps, some votes! The process which the Home Secretary denounced the other day of making legislation in order to get votes for the Referendum is really much more familiar on the Treasury Bench than the Home Secretary would have us believe. I have very little doubt the effort will be made to impose upon the lack of information and reading in economic science which is necessarily the lot of the greater part of the electorate by trying to pretend that this enactment will have operative effect. There is no depth of intellectual degradation to which the Government are reluctant to sink! There is nothing too cheap for them to pretend! Their experience leads them to see that there is nothing too groundless for any elector to believe! For my part, I am not going to be a party to Acts of Parliament being made applicable to things and the putting in of enactments which can have no effect. Therefore I should certainly divide the House against the Question that this Clause stands part of the Bill.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that there is possibly another reason besides that given by my Noble Friend as to why the Government has brought in this Clause. I fully agree with him when he says that
  1458
  the intention of the Government is not so foolish as it first appeared. I think they are anxious to put on a white sheet for one of their Members, who, like many others, is a much better capitalist in his private affairs than he would have us believe on the platform. Earl Beauchamp, in the sale of his property inserts in the agreement an express condition that the purchaser should pay all the charges imposed by his own colleagues. A considerable amount of animadvertion has been made upon this action, and the Government, no doubt, are anxious at the earliest possible moment to show their penitence, and at the same time, as my Noble Friend so well pointed out, to be able to go down to their friends at Limehouse and elsewhere and call attention to the fact that they are doing their utmost to protect the people against the landlords who are so rapidly selling up in order to invest their money elsewhere.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: This is the place where we are entitled to put to the Government this question: Can they in a few simple words, understandable by plain men, say what are the abuses—the imaginable abuses—against which this Clause is aimed?
  Mr. BALFOUR: We have wasted on this discussion a very great deal of valuable Parliamentary time, and I venture to suggest that, as the Government have taken the course they have, against, I think, their own interests, that there is really no object in wasting more time by a Division on a matter which it is perfectly futile to go on with. The Clause carries with it no meaning, nor is it worth putting into the Bill.
  Colonel GREIG: I have already pointed out that if you leave the matter at large you will introduce into land transactions an enormous amount of uncertainty. I suggest that the matter should not be left in doubt. If you put the charge on the vendee or the lessee, or the man who contracts to take the lease, you will put the liability for the duty upon the man who knows practically nothing about the value of the land except what he may get from his adviser, whereas if you put it upon the vendor or the lessor you at least put it on the shoulders of the man who knows, or is supposed to know, the value of his own property. Therefore from any point of view it is far better to put it on the vendor or the lessor.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I have received no answer from the Government. Apparently they have so little defence of this section. The main principle which has actuated taxation in this country, so long as this Government has been in power, has not been the idea of raising revenue, but of penalising individuals. Consequently they desire by this section to destroy all possibility of contracting out of it, because they desire that the transferor should pay the tax. Now the transferor, in the eyes of every Gentleman on the other side of the House, because he may be a landowner in most cases, is an individual who is guilty of every crime which the human brain can devise. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Consequently this penalising tax has been brought forward in the interests of the transferee when he takes over this property from the transfer or—the transferee being supposed to be a poor, guileless individual in the hands of a landlord who desires to exact a large and probably unfair price from him. But the moment the transaction is completed the transferee becomes a landlord. Surely that individual then should be the object of the Government for the extraction of money. If there is anything in the contention of the Government in regard to this taxation—when they say that they desire to acquire a certain sum of money from the landowners, they should keep their eyes fixed on that land! The land should bear the tax, and the Government have no right whatsoever to say that one individual in the contract should pay the tax, and that the other individual, if he so desires, should not be permitted to do so.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord, the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh) asked me a question. If he turns to Section 4, Sub-section (3), paragraph (6) in the original Act he will see that both the cases he mentioned are there provided for by the man having to give security if he has not already paid the duty. One single thing further. It is this: I shall ask the Committee to adopt the admirable advice tendered by the Leader of the Opposition and to pass the Clause without a Division, so that we can come to the discussion of the main subject.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think some defence should really have been made by the Government on what they intend this Clause to mean. The only explanations I have heard of it came from two hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite. Both being compatriots of mine, Scotsmen,
  1460
  they have a vested interest in economics. I had hoped that the arguments they addressed to the Committee were going to be reinforced by the words of the Financial Secretary. May I point out, in respect to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. and learned Member (Colonel Greig) that they both started off by assuming the very points which they wanted to prove. They both assumed you could put this tax upon the shoulders of either the vendor or the vendee. That is an absolute fallacy. You cannot by legislation or by anything else do anything of the kind, or say whether a tax will fall upon the shoulders of the vendor or the vendee.
  Colonel GREIG: You can put the legal liability to pay the tax on the vendor or the vendee; economic law will work this out.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Member forgets it is upon these shoulders it rests at the present moment, and if that be a fact, I cannot see what the object of the Government is in putting an obvious fact into the Bill. It depends upon the pull of the market. If the pull of the market is in favour of the vendor, he will have to pay the tax.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: How is it hat an Income Tax is invariably deducted from the vendor.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: In the case of Income Tax you have the payment over a considerable period of the year, but here you have a case of a single transaction, and I say no amount of legal phraseology or anything else can do anything to regulate the incidence of that tax, except the ordinary pull of the market. The hon. Member opposite gave the whole of his case away. His defence of the clause ignores the laws of supply and demand. That is our complaint, not only with regard to this Clause, but in regard to the action of the Government throughout.
  Dr. HILLIER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to explain how it is that this Government, who are never tired of proclaiming themselves the champions of the liberties and the privileges of the individual, justify the insertion of this Clause in this Revenue Bill. It is clearly an infringement of the rights and privileges enjoyed by individuals, and clearly interferes with the ordinary right of contract

  1461
  It has been pointed out by various speakers that in several hypothetical, and also actual, cases this Clause will interfere with the ordinary conduct of business. I think the instance cited by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) clearly demonstrates that. We must look, therefore, to some explanation for the presence of this Clause. It is perfectly obvious it can have no real effect upon the incidence of the burden of this tax. That can be arranged for in the ordinary course of negotiations, and no number of clauses will interfere with that. This Clause is really intended to attract some flashes again from the Mile End limelight. It is a piece of windowdressing. It is a specious pretence intended to catch the eye and adorn the perorations of Radical Members.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: The Leader of the Opposition wants this Amendment to be withdrawn. I hope the Noble Lord who moved it will show his independence about which we hear so frequently by sticking to the Amendment.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think we have got into a most absurd position. Here is a new Clause put in by the Government, of which no real explanation is given. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill gives no explanation at all, and contents himself by saying we ought to follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and not divide. We are pressing the Government to tell us what it is they mean by this Clause. We ask him to tell us whether it is not really intended as a mere piece of window-dressing for platform purposes. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman explaining the Clause, the explanation is left to the hon. learned and gallant Member (Colonel Greig). He gives an explanation which ought to be given by the Front Bench. His explanation is that you can fix the legal liability. But if the Clause only means that you fix the legal liability on the transferor, then there is no necessity for the Clause at all, because that is in the principal Act. If that interpretation is right, we have here a Clause simply repeated with a great deal of additional verbiage, what is already the law of the land enacted in the Budget passed last year. The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Ainsworth) also joined in the explanation, and his explanation is that you are simply doing in the case of Increment Value Duty what is done in the case of Income Tax, but the two things are totally
  1462
  different. Income Tax is a regular tax going on from year to year. This is a tax levied upon special occasions. It is provided by a regular plan that Income Tax should be deducted under Schedule A and placed definitely upon the owner. It is exceedingly inconvenient in cases of these special transactions that a man should be unable to get quit of the whole business by some contract of laying down distinctly that the tax should be paid by the transferee. I press the right hon. Gentleman opposite to endeavour to explain what the Government have in their minds. I do not know I should vote against this Clause if I only knew what it meant, but if I vote for it I do not know what I am voting for. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will tell us whether the explanation given from the benches behind the Government is the real explanation, or whether there is any other.
  Mr. CLAVELL SALTER: The object of this Clause obviously is to place the liability to make this particular payment on a particular person; but I am at the present moment uncertain if it can have any possible effect of forcing the real payment on this duty on the vendor as distinguished from the purchaser. I rise in perfectly good faith, seeing many most eminent lawyers upon the benches opposite, for the purpose of asking their opinion. We must assume here a willing purchaser and a willing vendor, or the Section has no application. They have agreed upon a price—say, £1,000. Then comes the question of Increment Duty. Now, either the amount of that duty will be known between the contracting parties or it will not be known. First, let us take the case where it will be known. Hon. Members will remember the duty is the difference between the original site value so far as known to-day and the value in the case of the transfer. Suppose the duty to be known, and suppose it to be £40. Either the purchaser is or is not willing to pay for the land, in addition to £1,000, another £40. If he is willing, what is the object of this Section. The contract would provide that the payment is to be £1,040, and the vendor, having received £1,040, will pay £40 to the Government. Is it not obvious that where the duty is known this Section can have no operation. It must deal only with cases where the amount of the duty is not known and remains to be ascertained. Let me take that case. Let me suppose that the contracting parties say to one another "The duty here

  1463
  will be something between £20 and £100," and the vendor says, "If the amount were ascertained, I am willing to give you whatever it may be in addition to £1,000 for the land." In the first place, it is quite obvious that the parties can do this without infringing the Section. They can say this: "We will estimate the duty at £60 or thereabouts," and as this Section works more and more the duty will be more easily ascertained in advance. The purchaser says, "I will give £1,060, and we will take the risk if it is a little more or a little less." Obviously that would not be an infringement of the Section?
  Supposing the parties are desirous that the vendor should pay the duty and he is willing to do so, and that the purchase price of the land would be £1,000 plus the amount of the duty to be ascertained, would that be an infringement of this Section? Supposing that is an infringement of the Section, would it also be an infringement of the Section if parties, seeing the duty would be about £100, fixed the purchase price in the contract as follows: "It shall be £1,100, but if, and so far, as the Increment Value Duty shall be ascertained to be less than £100, the difference between that duty and £100 shall be refunded." Will that be an infringement of the Section? I appeal to the lawyers opposite to tell us that, so that we can form some idea how far this Section is a reality.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford said, in moving his Amendment, that the Government were playing to the gallery. I want the House to turn to line 10 of the first Clause, where they will see reference to '"expenses incurred in connection with the payment of the assessment of the duty." It is perfectly obvious when the duty is to be assessed there must be a provisional site value fixed. Let me go a step further, and make it certain that the owner will pay all expenses in regard to the original valuation. May I give a concrete example myself of what I mean. About three years ago I acquired the fag end of a lease of a house in London, and this morning I received a letter from my solicitors as follows:—
  "Enclosed we send yon copy of a letter which we have received from the district vainer. If yon wish us to deal with it kindly send us the information required."
  After reading that letter I wired back to my solicitors telling them on no account to send the information, and stated that I would do so myself. My solicitors do not
  1464
  work for nothing, and probably they would have charged me 6s. 8d. or 10s. 6d., or perhaps £1 1s., for answering the letter and reading my telegram. In the case of this particular house I received Form IV. and I did not fill it in. I was not the owner of the house, and merely had the fag end of the lease. The owner is much wealthier than I am, and why should he not fill up Form IV. In taking that course I was simply following out the advice given us by the Secretary to the Treasury the other day, when, speaking in a discussion on Form IV., he said that the only person who could tell the value was the owner. That is the reason why I did not fill up Form IV. The following is a letter, dated March 7th, 1911, which I have received on this question from the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue:—
  "The Estate Duty account herein has come before this Department for the purpose of valuation, and on looking into the matter, I find no proper return has been made on Form IV. in respect thereto. In order to proceed with the matter it will be necessary to have further certain particulars as follows:
  "Are the premises held on separate leases?
  "The names and addresses of the Lessors and the rents they receive.
  "Dates of leases and length of terms.
  "What rents do the Lessors receive and what rents do each of the occupiers pay?"
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask what this has to do with the question whether the vendor or the vendee pays the increment?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which I cannot answer. I would invite the hon. Member to explain it.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The letter concludes:—
  "If you can let me hear as to these points I will then issue the provisional valuation."
  The information required would have cost me money to find out, and my solicitor would have sent me in a bill for doing the work. I want the Government to make it clear that it shall be the real owners who pay—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of the Government altering the Clause. The question is that Clause 1 stands part of the Bill, and no Amendment can be made.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: May I suggest that the hon. Member is giving eloquent arguments why the Clause should stand part.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I rather like the Clause as a whole, because it will form a valuable precedent. I have drafted something in keeping with this proposal, and I will read it to the Committee—
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If hon. Members think they can interfere with natural economic laws in this way, then it can be applied to every other matter, such as Customs Duties. Exactly the same principles as are suggested in this Clause could be applied to the taxation of commodities coming from abroad. It is just as easy to say that a purchaser shall not pay any part of the Customs Duty on an article he purchases as to say that the lessee or the vendee shall go scot free in (regard to any transaction of that sort. I think this Clause is a very valuable lesson, and we shall certainly rub it in when the time comes!
  Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee is prepared to come to a decision on the Question before the Chair.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Explanation and Amendment of Law as to Reversion Duty.)
  (1) It is hereby declared that in relation to a lease which has determined the person in whom the lessor's interest was vested immediately before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, or if the lease has determined before that time, immediately before the transaction or event in consequence of which the lease has determined is the lessor for the purpose of Section fifteen of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), and is the person to whom any benefit accrues from or by reason of the determination of the lease for the purpose of the other provisions of that Act relating to Reversion Duty.
  (2) Where, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a lease of any land determines on the vesting of the lessor's interest and the lessee's interest in the same person before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, the amount of the Reversion Duty (if any) payable shall not be the full duty, but such an amount as would, with compound interest at the rate of four per centum per annum for the residue of the term for which the lease was granted, produce the amount of the full duty.
  For the purposes of this provision the full duty means the duty (if any) which
  1466
  would have become payable if the lease had not determined until the expiration of the term for which it was granted, and if the total value of the land were at that time the same as it is when the lease actually determines.
  (3) Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of the principal Act shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed never to have had effect.
  Mr. CAVE Mr. CAVE moved to leave out Section (1).
  I have put down this Amendment mainly to draw an explanation from the Government as to what the Clause really means. I confess I do not fully understand it, and consequently I am rather suspicious about it. This Sub-section provides that for the purposes of the Reversion Duty the person who has the reversion immediately before the merger shall be deemed to be the lessor. This cannot be a mere definition' Clause, because I find in the principal Act a sufficient definition clause in Section 41, and I do not see why it is necessary to have a further definition. Sub-section (1) contains the following words: "and is the person to whom any benefit accrues." I should like to know what the meaning of that proposed enactment is. Surely there is no difficulty in knowing to whom a benefit accrues. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Ainsworth) said the meaning is that the person who gets the benefit pays the tax. Is it really necessary to have a statute declaring who gets the benefit? Take the purchase of a lease by reversion. Who gets the benefit? If the lessor gets a good bargain he gets the benefit, but if he does not make a good bargain he gets no benefit at all. I find it very difficult to discover what the meaning and the purpose of this Section is, and that is why I have moved the omission of this Section.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. and learned Member has asked for a few words of explanation as to why this Clause is proposed in the Revenue Bill of this year. The explanation of it, put in plain terms, will not occupy much time. The Committee will remember that under the Finance Bill of 1909–10 Reversion Duty became payable on the determination of a lease. It is no doubt a true construction of that Clause to say that the Reversion Duty becomes payable whether the lease be determined by the effluxion of time or at an earlier period, owing to the circumstance

  1467
  that the landlord's interest and the tenant's interest fall into the same hands. That earlier determination may arise because the landlord buys the tenant's interest, or, on the other hand, it may arise because the tenant acquires the landlord's interest. It may arise in a case where neither of the two parties to the lease acquire the interest of the other, but where the interests of both fall into the hands of a third person. Whichever of those things happen, the lease thus determined comes to an end before its natural life and expires before the period of the lease in the ordinary course of events. That being so, a Reversion Duty no doubt has to be paid. But by whom? I think the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Cave) will agree with me that this is a difficult question. It is not easy on the language of the Finance Act of last year to say in that case which of the two persons concerned is the person who by the language of the Act is required to pay the duty, and it is in order to make that plain that this Clause has been proposed. The Committee will see that this is a Clause which does not effect any change in the law, but merely declares what is intended. It does not alter the law, but begins by saying "It is hereby declared." It provides that "the person in whom the lessor's interest was vested immediately before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted is the lessor for the purpose of Section 15 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910." If there has been a determination before the end of the natural term, either by surrender or merger, the person who shall pay is the person who held that interest immediately before the term came to an end. As has been pointed out a great many times on the first Clause by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), and others, of course, the economic effect of this will be adjusted necessarily from time to time, but, however that may be, you must make it plain which of two possible persons is to pay the duty, and it is solely for the purpose of making that plain that we propose these words should be inserted.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the learned Solicitor-General's explanation quite enlightens the House as to the history of this Clause. There is nothing new in this. All the points were discussed in the Debates of 1909, and the difficulty
  1468
  arises really because the Government use an expression in this Act which conveys a wrong impression altogether. This duty is supposed to be levied upon the person to whom the benefit accrues. In Section 13, Sub-section (1), the duty is levied upon the person to whom the benefit accrues, and then in Sub-section (2) we are told that for the purpose of this Section the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor shall be deemed to be something totally different. That is why all this trouble arises. The Government use an expression which is commonly understood, and the country and the House are informed that this is a duty levied upon and paid by the persons to whom the benefit accrues, and then they say here that the person to whom the benefit accrues is to be deemed to be somebody who may get nothing at all. That is really the position. Persons who are getting no benefit and who cannot conceivably get any benefit are being made liable to the payment of the duty. The Solicitor-General did not make that clear, but it is a fact, and he knows it. These heavy burdens are being imposed on the supposition that benefit accrues, whereas no benefit of any kind accrues at all. It certainly is a very remarkable way of drawing up an Act of Parliament, when it is necessary now to have a further clause to decide who is the lessor in the case of merger. The point I suppose is that one person is the lessor before the merger, and another person is the lessor after merger, and no lawyer has yet been able to decide which is the lessor of the instant of passing when the duty falls due. This is another example of the Serbonian bog of difficulties into which the whole land market is plunged by this kind of legislation, and I suppose as long as we continue to sit here we shall be trying to get the Government out of the mess.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. St. MAUR Mr. St. MAUR moved, in Section (2) after the word "granted" ["before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted"] to insert the words, "Reversion Duty shall not be levied upon such vesting of the lessor's interest and the lessee's interest in the same person, provided that such vesting of the lessor's and lessee's interests is completed by the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifteen, after which date."
  I have ventured to put down this Amendment in order to draw attention to one result of this Revenue Bill. The

  1469
  point has been raised before on one or two occasions, but I do not think it has ever received very serious attention. It is proposed to charge Reversion Duty upon the merger or the vendor of the lease prior to its natural determination. That is the intention of the Clause. Certainly, since it was first put in, when nobody understood what was to happen in these cases at all, considerable concession has been made, as we now see in this portion of the Clause, but my point is that the levying of this duty is checking the willingness of owners to sell, and will probably do so several, if not many, years to come. Some of them hope, vainly no doubt, that at some future time there may be a chance of reversing this particular scheme, but the fact remains, and it affects the West of England especially, that owners are not so willing to sell as they were. Consequently, it is really acting as a check upon leasehold enfranchisement which I think many of us wish to see come about. I think I am right in saying there was a concession made in another portion of the Finance Bill of 1909, in which a period of five years' grace was given for schemes which were then under development, or were to come under development. Surely, those persons who developed schemes years ago deserve just as much consideration as those who have only just begun to develop. Is it too much to suggest, therefore, that a period of four or five years should be allowed in which those who own property now be enabled, if they choose, to meet their tenants without paying this particular duty? It is chiefly on account of the checking of leasehold enfranchisement in that part of the country with which I am more or less intimately acquainted—it is actually a fact at present—that I have put this Amendment down, and I hope the Government may see their way to meet us in the matter.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The Committee, I am sure, will appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has put this point very clearly, and I want to deal with it in the spirit in which it deserves to be dealt with. It is impossible to accept his suggestion for a reason which, I think, he will see. The question at the moment is not whether the Reversion Duty is a good tax or a bad tax, but it is whether it will be right to make an exception which is a special, exception for one particular kind of person, who might otherwise have to pay without giving a similar exception or favour to others who might be nearly
  1470
  in the same position. I would suggest that we cannot in this matter very well pick and choose. If the duty is going to be imposed, it must be imposed on some general principle, and instances of this kind, though very naturally asked to be protected by those who think a hard case arises, can hardly be provided for by a Clause of this sort. May I point out to the hon. Member that what he is proposing is that the Reversion Duty shall not be levied, supposing there is a merger, any time before 1915. Supposing a lease lapses in the ordinary course because its time has run out, and not because of a merger, he would by this proposal be making a distinction between two cases which really do not deserve such discriminating treatment. Therefore, while one appreciates his point, it is quite impossible to accept a motion which in effect would give a special favour to a special class. For those reasons I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he wishes to press his proposal. It does seem impossible to us to make a distinction between one man and another.
  Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I have put down an Amendment very similar to that moved by my hon. Friend. I do not propose to trouble the House with it, but I should certainly like to support the Amendment which, in my opinion, is of the greatest importance, especially in the West of England. I put down my Amendment for two reasons and with two objects. My first reason and my first object was to carry into effect that pledge which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which has been repeated and reiterated by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House on hundreds of platforms, that no man could or would be taxed on his own improvements. I want to show the Committee what effect this Reversion Duty, as it now stands, will have on a man who has made improvements himself. My second object in putting down an Amendment similar to this was in order to encourage what in the West of England, and especially in my Constituency, is a most important question, the question of leasehold enfranchisement. I hope on this side of the House there are several hon. Gentlemen who still believe in that old Liberal doctrine and principle that you should make the transfer of land as easy as possible instead of trying to check it, as you are doing by this Reversion Duty. There is in my Constituency the great industry of china clay,

  1471
  and there is a teeming population of clay workers, for whom it is difficult to find houses to live in. Therefore in many cases they obtain a lease of land, and on that land they build houses out of their hard-earned savings, or sometimes they borrow money. What happens when the lease expires? There are various leases. Some are for forty years and some for ninety-nine—I think that is the longest—and there is also a system of life leases. When the lease expires, the house which the clay worker has built out of his own savings goes back into the hands of the ground landlord. I believe that is described by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a system of blackmail. Well, this Reversion Duty does nothing to check it. The Government, in fact, are really sharing in the spoil. If this be a system of blackmail, then they are guilty—I believe it is the legal phrase of such transactions, the Solicitor-General will contradict me if I am wrong—of compounding a felony. There are certain cases in Cornwall where landowners give the option of purchase to china clay workers, and this Reversion Duty, as it now stands, will militate against that. I hope to make my case clear to the Committee by reading correspondence which I had with one of my Constituents in December last, just before the election. The letter, which came from St. Austell—I do not propose to give the name of the writer—I will call him Augustus Reginald—was in these terms:—
  "Dear Sir.—Will you please inform me if it is a fact that in the case of a leaseholder purchasing the free hold of his land, the landlord would have to pay the Government 10 per cent. on the value of the land, plus the value of any buildings, etc., on it. A case in point.—I have an opportunity of purchasing my freehold at 30 years' purchase, which would amount to (roughly) £150, but I have put £600 worth of buildings on the land, and I am informed that 10 per cent. will be charged on the buildings as well as on the land, consequently unless I agree to pay this 10 per cent. on the buildings the landlord will not sell. Is this the law? Your reply will oblige.—Yours truly,
  AUGUSTUS REGINALD."
  To this I replied:—
  "Dear Sir.—I regret to have to inform you that under the existing law, if you want to obtain the house which yon have built you will have to pay a sum of money to Mr. Lloyd George for the privilege of doing so. I congratulate you on having such a shrewd idea of the law."
  I had a doubt whether I was interpreting the law correctly, and in order to make doubly sure I obtained the assistance of an hon. Gentleman now on the Front Bench. I went to him and showed him the letter from my Constituent and asked him whether he could get me first-hand information. He was kind enough to do so,
  1472
  and he returned me a reply from the Inland Revenue authorities to the following effect:—
  "Under the original provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act Reversion Duty would have been payable on the excess of the total values on the determination of the lease over the total value at the grant of the lease of the basis of rent reserved and payments made in consideration of the lease. But under the Proposal contained in the Revenue Bill now before the House, the sum payable will be only the present value of the duty discounted at 4 per cent. for the unexpired term of the lease. As the unexpired term of Mr. Augustus Reginald's lease appears to be a long one—(he is getting the freehold for 30 years' purchase of the ground rent)—the sum payable will be extremely small."
  It matters not in the way of principle whether the sum is small or big. The question is that this gentleman is paying directly to the Treasury on his own improvements. We have been told over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman that that would not be the case under the Finance Act. What would be the effect if this Amendment were accepted, as I hope the Government will accept it when they have considered the matter more carefully than they appear to have done up to the present time. The effect will be that during the next five years landowners anxious to escape the Reversion Duty will offer their leaseholds for sale, and we shall see good opportunity given in many cases to workers to purchase their freeholds. In this Amendment the period is put at five years, but there is no magic in that term; I would like to see it extended to ten, fifteen, or even twenty years, so as to give opportunity and encouragement to lease-holders to enfranchise their holding. By so doing you will bring land into the market, you will unlock the door of this monopoly, and you will remedy many real grievances. Unless the Government are determined to prevent leasehold enfranchisement in this country—and I cannot think that they are—they will accept this Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The point made in this Amendment is certainly one that needs very careful consideration, though I am not quite certain of the words of the Amendment itself and the exact manner in which it is proposed do not merit the reply which it received just now from the Solicitor-General as being rather impracticable. If adopted it would create at once a very serious discrepancy between the purchase of a freehold interest in four years and of one in six years, and, of course, that is a matter which would give rise to obvious unfairness. The principle of the Amendment is one which is exceedingly valuable,

  1473
  but before it is passed it ought to be looked carefully into. There are a large number of Members on this side of the House as well as on the other side who have been convinced, by personal experience that freehold property is a much more desirable thing in itself than leasehold property, and the principle of leasehold enfranchisement is one which we would like to see very much more largely adopted. We would like to see every possible facility given for leaseholds to be made into freeholds. There are two ways of getting rid of leasehold interests in property. One is by the landlord purchasing the leasehold interest, and the other is by the leaseholder purchasing the freehold. With regard to the landlord purchasing the leasehold interest that is frequently done in order to make a new lease and with a view to improving the property, and that is certainly an object which, I think, it ought to be the policy of every tax and every Act of Parliament to assist in bringing about.
  The true principle, to my mind, of property owning—in the case of landed property in particular—is that it should be made the best use of in the interests of the general community, and if that principle were borne in mind and carried out in dealing with such matters as we have now before us it would give us a very important lead. What is the position? There are scattered all over the country a very large number of leasehold estates, and it has become the practice lately of a good many of the freeholders—the freehold landlords—to give their tenants the option of purchasing the freehold upon certain reasonable terms. The Reversion Duty in the way in which it was passed in the Finance Act, makes that transaction a taxable one, and when the leaseholder buys out his principal landlord and becomes his own landlord there is a tax which has to be paid. This Clause meets a grievance which at present exists. It provides that when that transaction takes place—that when the leaseholder buys the landlord out he shall not have to pay the full Reversion Duty, but he shall be allowed a rebate at the rate of 4 per cent. That is a valueable concession. I for one appreciate it. I think the Government are very much to be congratulated on having brought this Clause in, because it does meet an existing difficulty to some extent. The object of the Amendment is that in those particular cases where the leaseholder buys the freehold, and therefore becomes the free-holder
  1474
  of the property, if he carries out that transaction within the next five years he shall not be subject to any tax. In supporting the general principle of the Amendment I venture to suggest it should be made clear that whenever the leaseholder buys the freeholder out he ought not to have any tax to pay at all, either now, or in five years, or at any other period. I put it very strongly to those who are in charge of this Bill whether they cannot see their way to make an exception which would not create an injustice and would not be capable of being criticised as being inconsistent, but which would directly conduce to this most desirable course being adopted, of enabling every leaseholder who had the option to purchase to exercise that option and turn his leasehold into a freehold without that transaction being taxed. It is in the hope that the Government may see its way to extend this section by adopting the principle of this Amendment, or some similar Amendment, that I have ventured to make these observations to the Committee.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: I beg to submit to the Committee that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member does not really improve the position, but rather the reverse, as compared with what is done in this Revenue Bill. Towards the end of a long lease of ninety-nine years within the operation of the Amendment it would be possible for the landlord to sell that lease at a very considerable profit to himself compared with the terms on which the lease was originally granted. The china clay worker having expended a considerable sum of money in building a house the landlord, in fixing the price whether the duty is payable or not, would receive a considerable portion by way of purchase of the amount expended by the china clay worker. The landlord would not be likely to sell the lease to the lessee without having regard to the fact that by that sale he would acquire considerable advantages as compared with holding the lease until its natural expiration, so that clearly, even in the case of a lease expiring in the next few years a lease granted some years ago, to which additional value has been created by the expenditure of the lessee's money, profit would accrue to the lessor. Therefore it is just as fair that it should be taxed. The point of value in this Revenue Bill is that it gives encouragement to a man to acquire the freehold of his lease in its early stage. It frequently happens that in developing an estate first

  1475
  the land is leasehold with the option to acquire the freehold in a certain term of years. The price is fixed when the lease is granted. It is not fixed on the basis of profit to the ground landlord, but it is simply fixed for the convenience of the lessee to enable him to enter on the land at once and put up a house thereon. If he chooses at any time within the three or five years to acquire the freehold he does that without additional payment and without profit to the landowner. But if I understand this Clause aright, even if the freehold is acquired within one, two or three years, or one, two, or three days, after the house has been erected, then presumably the lessor has made a profit in theory equal in value to that of the house that has been built, and added to the land, whereas, in point of fact, having granted an option for the enfranchisement of the lease, he has not made a penny. I suggest to the Solicitor-General, in addition to what he has done in the way of concession under this Clause, he ought to make some provision that encourages a man to acquire a freehold within a reasonable time that the land has been granted to him, because that will be of benefit to many working men. But I do not think the amendment of my hon. Friend would at all meet the case. In addition to the inequalities which, the Solicitor-General has already pointed out, I think it would place the ordinary lessee when an end came to the operation of the short-term limit in a very much worse position than this clause in the Bill proposes to place him.
  Mr. BOYTON: I hope that the learned Solicitor-General, if he is not prepared to concede this reasonable Amendment, will introduce words which will give effect to a suggestion made in some correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which appeared in the Press. It has reference to a very well-known way of preventing a merger in these cases, and that would be to vest the interest in a trustee. I was hoping to find that this concession had been made and that it would be quite clear in the Act that it would be a perfectly legal and everyday occurrence for a person wishing to escape a Reversion Duty to vest in a trustee the interest which is between landlord and tenant.
  Mr. M'CURDY: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for the Tyneside division has said as to this proposed Amendment not in any way meeting
  1476
  the hardships which hon. Members opposite allude to, and I merely rise to suggest that all that hardship would be met, and the interest of the Revenue fully safeguarded, if the Government could see their way to accept an Amendment which appears lower in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division (Mr. Agar-Robartes), who sits behind me, and which runs:—
  "Where the interest of the lessor merges into that of the lessee no duty shall be payable on any value directly or indirectly due to the improvements made by the lessee prior to the merger of such interest."
  In that form I have no doubt the Government might take proper objection to it, but if the words were altered either by prefacing on the words: "In the case of a lease which still has, say, eighty or eighty-five years to run," or alternatively by making it read: "Where the interest of the lessor merges into that of the lessee within, say, five or ten years from the date of the granting of the lease no duty shall be payable." The Amendment so altered would meet the case put by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division—the case of the Reversion Duty which, under the provision, would be claimable upon the exercise of the option of purchase within-one or two years after the lease had been granted. It would also meet another difficulty which has been suggested by an hon. Member near me—a very common case—of working men clubbing together to form a house-building club, and the land is originally vested in trustees, and the practice is, after the houses have been built, that there is a surrender by the trustees and a fresh grant of individual leases in respect to individual houses in regard to which Reversion Duty is claimable upon that transfer. Both that grievance and those voiced by hon. Members opposite would be met if that were accepted by the Government in a modified form.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the Government will agree that there is obviously a feeling on both sides of the House that something should be done here. I can quite understand, however, that before accepting any actual words consideration is necessary. It is obvious that there must be legal advice as to what the final effect of such words would be, and. I may say at once that it would meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House if the Government will say that they will accept the spirit of this Amendment, and will on the Report stage

  1477
  introduce words to carry it out. The spirit of this Amendment I take it is a perfectly plain one, which was very ably stated by the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division. It is that there should be no tax upon the enfranchisement of leaseholders. That really is the main point. May I point out this, which is rather an important fact, that the mere alleviation of the duty does not meet the case, because a duty of this kind, even if it is reduced in size where the whole process has to be gone through, gives rise to great expense. What is required is not an Amendment which will enable enfranchisement to be carried out free of duty after going through the whole mill of inquiry, but a perfectly clear provision which will make it plain that in an ordinary enfranchisement, where under ordinary conditions in fact, apart from its being deemed to accrue, no benefit does accrue to the landlord—that in that case it shall be perfectly clear that no duty shall be payable, and the enfranchisement of such land shall take place without there being any passing through the mill at all. That is what the Committee desire, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be meeting the wishes of hon. Members on both sides if he will deal with it in that spirit.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the very practical and conciliatory speech which has just been made by the hon. Gentleman, he is really in accordance with the views of the Government. I think we are really anxious to arrive at the same thing, although we are getting at it by different routes. Our view is this, in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cornwall and the hon. Member for Northampton, that there is this difficulty, that supposing we accepted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, we might find ourselves in this position, that everybody who has got a lease which was going to expire in a short time—in a few months—and who at the expiration of that lease would have to pay a very considerable amount of fresh duty if he were allowed to merge his interest, would take a lease in somebody else's interest and in that way escape duty altogether. Supposing the principle of Reversion Duty is accepted, I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman means.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said so.
  Mr. M'CURDY: My suggestion was that the Amendment of the hon. Member for
  1478
  St. Austell prefaced by the words "in the case of a lease in which upwards of eighty years have still to run," would meet the practical difficulty.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that point. I do not think he is correct in that sense. We do want to meet, if we can, the general sense of the Committee, and we think we do that by reducing the Reversion Duty to what is practically the vanishing point. Take the extreme case of my hon. Friend. A man builds a house and lets it on lease, and then after two or three days and before any sort of reversion value is created to him he has to pay a duty. By discounting the Reversion Duty which is payable on the termination of the lease we really do bring it down to the vanishing point. The sooner that lease is transferred or merged—the sooner the interests are merged after the lease has been granted—the greater is the amount of advantage reaped by the reversioner. Supposing within ten days of the original lease the merger takes place, that means that there are eighty years or practically eighty years to run. Inasmuch as his: reversionary interest has got eighty years to run by redeeming it at once, the point of reversionary value being so far distant the man gains. May I give a concrete case of a man who has got fifty years to run. As it now stands the duty which would be payable would be £112. Under our proposals we say, discount £112 pounds duty fifty years hence, and instead of having to pay £112 his Reversion Duty is only £15. Make the point at which that reversion is still more distant—make it eighty years instead of being down to £15 it might be down to £5 or £10. The further off the Reversion Duty is payable the less is the tax laid upon the person. In this way we do get out of the difficulty, and people will avoid the Reversion Duty altogether who ought to escape payment. We, therefore, really think that by reducing the Reversion Duty to vanishing point we reduce the hardship and diminish it also to vanishing point.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: Why should you not exempt altogether a lease, say, within five years of its creation. After all, you say the working man would only have to pay £5, but why should he pay £5? The landlord has agreed to grant a lease on the terms on which the freehold can be acquired. Those terms provide the landlord with no profit. If I know anything about landlords, if they have £5 to

  1479
  pay they will put it on the lessee. Why, then, should the working man pay £5 for his house when no value has accrued?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is a common case that leases are granted with option of purchase for ten years at a fixed sum. It is absurd to suggest that the tax can be leviable on an agreed sum like that upon which the lessor has no option, and on which he can make no possible profit, and why in such a case should there be Reversion Duty levied? Surely the responsibility lies upon the Government if they introduce a tax to see that it does not act contrary to public policy. It is their duty, surely, to so frame their tax that they do not levy it unjustly, and do not in the levying of it interfere with a process which is admittedly beneficial, namely, the enfranchisement of leaseholds.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If I understand the last point of the hon. Gentleman it is this. Why in the case where there is a fixed price should you levy a duty? I imagine the fixed price contains a very considerable element of benefit.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Not a penny. The process is this. You have a piece of land worth £1,000, and the person who is going to purchase it to build on says: "I do not want to find the £1,000 now, though I may want to find it later, and rather than pay you the £1,000 down I prefer to take a ninety-nine years' lease on a 4 per cent. basis, and pay £40 a year ground rent, with an option of purchase at £1,000 any time during the first ten years." That is an ordinary business transaction. Surely it is contrary to the public policy that lessees should be deprived of that advantage. It is the option of the lessee from the first. The owner would probably sooner have his £1,000, particularly under the present circumstances. But it is purely and solely for the convenience of the lessee. This is a common-place of the land market. Surely it is desirable to understand these matters before legislating upon them. The Government goes into the land market just like a bull in a china shop. Now we are producing broken crockery, and the Government are trying to say that they have not broken it, but the people on their side know just as well as the people on ours that they are breaking it, and we desire that they should do as much as they can before they leave the shop, to mend the damage which they are doing.
  Mr. W. ROCH: I fully appreciate the difficulty of the Amendment, but I should like to call the Financial Secretary's attention to a case which is very common, I am told, in South Wales with regard to building clubs, and in which very great difficulty arises. From the information which has been given to me, I understand the practice is very frequent of forming building clubs. The practice is then for the trustees of the club to take en bloc a large area of land. What happens then is that their members build various houses on the one block, and as soon as they are completed they are ready to take separate leases, and the practice is for the trustees to surrender their lease to the landlord and then get him to grant a fresh lease to each of the individual members who have built their houses. The effect of these particular cases is this. The lease, unfortunately, in many cases contains a condition that they cannot underlet or assign without consent, and the landlord will not grant a fresh lease, and they are compelled to surrender and take a fresh lease. In each of these cases, when the house is built, the unfortunate lessee who takes his lease is at once caught with the Reversion Duty on the whole house which he has just built, which is a very hard case. I do not know what the difficulties are in the way of the Amendment next down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Agar-Robartes), but what I would submit is this: I cannot see that there is any real difficulty if the restriction is confined to the first five years of the original granting of the lease if in fact the new lease is one and the same transaction as the original lease, and there will be no loss of revenue or any real difficulty in that case if the first five years are excepted.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to see me the other day in regard to this particular case. It is a case which, so far as I know, only occurs in parts of Wales. I am not aware of it occurring in other parts of the country. It seems to be a real substantial grievance. I cannot undertake to accept the words of the hon. Member (Mr. Agar-Robartes), but I will take care to consider this point, and if we possibly can find words, without in any way endangering the principle, to which we attach the greatest importance, we will meet this particular hardship.
  Mr. PERKINS: There are two points which arise to my mind out of the discussion

  1481
  I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment before the House, and I am not quite certain that it goes far enough. There is in my constituency a very great grievance that, if this Bill becomes law, a great many people who hope to enfranchise their leases will be prevented from doing so, and in the case particularly of Bournemouth, which is a new area, all held nearly on leases of various lengths, and sub-leases, the matter is of very great importance. It has been represented to me that the case of Bournemouth may be the case perhaps of a great many other seaside resorts which have grown up lately. I will give the instance of one estate in Bournemouth where the grievance is especially feared. There is a large building estate upon which I understand there are some eighty properties. The whole of that estate was leased by the ground landlord to one lessee, and he, in his turn, sub-leased to some seventy or eighty persons, and they, in their turn, have sub-leased again to the present lessee, so there are four parties to the transaction. Under this Bill, as it stands, it is believed, and I want to know whether there is reason for this belief, that before any one of these sub-lessees can enfranchise his property no less than three duties will have to be paid. The position is this. The first person to enfranchise will be the original lessee of the freeholder. The freeholder sells his interest to lessee A, and pays the duty. He, in his turn, settles with the person next under him, and he pays his duty, and that person in his turn settles with the lessee under him. On each one of these transactions the Reversion Duty, as we fear, will have to be paid. That is absolutely prohibitive to any transaction, and there are many pending in leasehold enfranchisementin Bournemouth. I beg the hon. Gentleman to give the matter his attention because I am sure all sides of the House are agreed as to the advantage of leasehold enfranchisement, and it will be a thousand pities if leasehold enfranchisement were stopped, as it is being stopped, by an error in the drafting of the Act. Another point arises in connection with the Clause. It is the opinion of all practical surveyors with whom I have discussed the matter that the rate of interest for discounting is too high. The rate mentioned in the Bill is 4 per cent., but for discounting, to arrive at the present value of leasehold property, 5 or 6 per cent. would be none too much, and I suggest
  1482
  that the rate should be reconsidered, and that, certainly in the case of inferior property, particularly cottage property, 5 per cent., or even 6 per cent., should be the table adopted. I am backed in that opinion by many surveyors of repute with whom these matters are of daily occurrence. Any attention the hon. Gentleman can give to the matter will be received most gratefully by those who are interested and who have transactions, as I have, in leasehold enfranchisement.
  Mr. JAMES ROWLANDS: I should like to press on the Secretary to the Treasury the very great importance of the issues which have been put before the House, as one who has taken a great interest for many years in leasehold enfranchisement. This has a much wider range throughout the country than appears even by the enthusiasm of the hon. Member (Mr. Agar-Robartes) in putting the case of his constituency. It is not confined to his constituency, but it occurs in the whole of Cornwall and in the whole of Wales, and I will give a case in the South of England. I think you will find in the Devonshire leases at Eastbourne that a tenant is allowed to enfranchise any time during the first ten years of the lease. What we want to do is to protect the man who has put upon the land a house which is, with the added value, the result of his thrift and his industry. We think it is a case worthy of the consideration of the Government, and I endorse the point put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman), that they should promise us to carefully look into it. The impression was that the Secretary to the Treasury, in his answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Roch), was only dealing with the case of Wales. The matter, however, has a wider scope. I gather now that his promise applies to the larger question, and thank him for having given it.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CAVE: I understand the matter is to be considered, and I want to press the Government to consider it from rather a wider point of view. I do not think the stress of the question is confined to cases where there is an option to purchase, nor to cases where the lease may be enfranchised in five or ten years, I wish rather to take the wider view, that there should not be a tax on leasehold enfranchisement. I entirely agree that you must not allow any such exemption to be used for the purpose of escaping duties which would be payable at the end of the term. It will

  1483
  not do to induce people to say "our term is running out, we are going to be subject to Reversion Duty, therefore let us buy the reversion a year or two before the end, and escape the duty altogether." It is quite easy to prevent that kind of evasion by saying that there must be a substantial time to run at the time the reversion is purchased. You may put it at ten or twenty years. I do not mind what it is, but you must use some precaution. Subject to that, I do hope that sooner or later we shall get a rule laid down that no taxation shall prevent the enfranchisement of a lease. I should like to say that I think, at all events, if you levy Reversion Duty, you should not levy it on the lessee's own improvements, whatever they are. I quite agree that there are certain deductions, but still it remains a fact that the lessor has paid duty on the lessee's improvements. I do not think that anybody would like that to be the rule. I only rose to press the point that we do not wish the consideration which the Government have promised to give to this matter to be confined to the option of buying in five years, or something of that kind, but that they should also take into consideration that there should be no tax on tenant's improvements.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I rather agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cave). The object of the Reversion Tax, as I understood, was to get at the landlord at the end of the term when he comes into property in the shape of houses which he has not built. I sincerely hope that the Government will not do anything to stand in the way of leasehold enfranchisement. Twice in this House a Bill has been brought forward and obtained a Second Reading for leasehold enfranchisement. I agree that you should not limit it to five or fifteen years. If I remember rightly, the Bill provided that any tenant could enfranchise his lease by paying so many years' purchase of the ground rent. I hope to see such a Bill brought in again. I am sure it will receive much support on this side of the House and also some support on the other side. If in the first five, ten, twenty, or thirty years of a lease the landlord is forced to enfranchise at so many years' purchase of the ground rent, he gets no profit at all, and I do not see why the lessee should have to pay the duty, seeing that he is coming into nothing at all either. Of
  1484
  course, at the end of the term he has to pay Increment Duty, whenever he sells. I agree with the general principle that a man should be allowed to enfranchise his property without any penalty of any kind so long as so many years' ground rent may be fixed by agreement or by statute. I trust the Government will not allow anything to get into the Bill which would prevent that being done.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Would the Government say exactly what the pledge is? We do not understand whether the pledge given was only given in reply to the hon. Member from Wales who spoke regarding Welsh clubs, or whether it was given also in regard to leasehold enfranchisement as a whole. Can we get a clear understanding that the Government will on the Report stage introduce a Clause to meet the general wish of the House that leaseholds should be free from this duty altogether, while having regard at the same time to the principle of the Bill that, where the lessor has received the real benefit of something which he has not created, he should pay the duty.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: What I have undertaken to do did arise on the occasion of Wales being mentioned. I am very unwilling to pledge myself to exact words. As to the point which the hon. Gentleman raised that there shall be no form of duty charged in certain circumstances that seems to me to raise difficulties, for, while remitting duty in certain genuine cases, it might be really necessary to go through the form of charging duty in order to protect the Revenue against fraudulent intent, or at all events casual evasion. Therefore I am very unwilling to pledge myself to distinct words—not merely the words of the Clause, but as to the exact concession. What I undertake on behalf of the Government is this. We will look into these cases which have been mentioned, and will, on the Report Stage, bring up amending words, and endeavour to meet the views expressed on both sides of the House. I cannot limit myself as to how far I shall go on this point.
  Mr. SPEAR: As this is a matter which very extensively affects many of my Constituents I desire to give my cordial support to the Amendment before the Committee. I am glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to favourably consider the matter. I am satisfied that, unless this obstacle is removed, in

  1485
  some parts of my Constituency, at any rate, it will seriously hinder what I am sure we all wish to see, namely, the better housing of the people. Some of us were very much opposed to the land clauses of the Budget because we believed they would hinder the making of better provision for the housing of the working classes, and I think we have here evidence that to some extent at least that has been the case. I may say, as one who on a previous occasion supported the bringing in of a leasehold enfranchisement Bill, that I do think, in the interest of the well-being of the nation, we should do whatever we can to encourage the ownership of the land and the house in which a man dwells. But we cannot always secure land whereon to build a house, and the next best thing is to be able to have a lease. Indeed, in many cases it is more convenient for the builder to proceed on a lease, because for financial reasons it would not be convenient for him to purchase the land. I may say that we owe a debt of gratitude to even speculative builders who have done so much to provide houses for the people when other sources of supply have failed.
  An HON. MEMBER: "Order, Peel."
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: Mr. Deputy-Chairman, on a point of Order. I wish to know whether an hon. Member is entitled to call another hon. Member to order and give his name?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I do not see any point of Order in that.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not against the Standing Orders to call an hon. Member to order by naming him. Has not that been laid down by the Speaker?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is the duty of the Chair always to take notice of interjections which have not reached him.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: May I respectfully ask a ruling on the point as to whether it is in order for an hon. Member to call another hon. Member by his name? That is the point on which I should like to ask your ruling.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman ashamed of his name? I am not ashamed of mine.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that any point of Order arises here.
  Earl WINTERTON: My hon. Friend was called upon by his name, and I would like your ruling on the point of Order as to whether it is in order to call an hon. Member by his name?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already said I do not see that any point of Order arises here. I deprecate interjections of any kind while discussion is proceeding.
  Mr. LYNCH: May you indicate another hon. Member by pointing with the finger?
  Mr. SPEAR: I am sure that the interruption which has taken place does not indicate that we are not anxious to see the people better housed. I would like to see every unreasonable hindrance taken out of the way of men who are prepared to acquire land at a fair price on which to build houses. Next to that we do want that the man who builds on leasehold shall be encouraged as soon as opportunity occurs to become the owner of the land. In the neighbourhood from which I come a good many houses are built on lease, and that has been a convenience to the builder for financial reasons, because he was unable to buy the land. It has been urged that the period of five years is too limited. I quite agree with that. I hope the Government will consider the matter in a broad-minded spirit and do something to remove the check on building operations which, unfortunately, this Clause and Clauses in the principal Act impose in relation to the making of better provision for the working-classes. By making this alteration we will somewhat remove that difficulty, and afford encouragement to speculators to go on building with the knowledge that they will not be penalised on their own expenditure, but rather encouraged to become freeholders when the opportunity occurs.
  Mr. ST. MAUR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I make no apology for saying a few additional words on this very important point. It was felt, when the Reversion Duty was passed, that it was dealing a very serious blow at leasehold enfranchisement. I am one of those who have always considered that leasehold enfranchisement is one of the most important matters with regard to the housing of the poor. The object of the tax, so far as I can ascertain, was to make the landlord disgorge a considerable amount of profit at a time when the

  1487
  improvements which the tenant had made fell into the landlord's hands. I wish to give an illustration of what happens. Take the case of a piece of land for which £1,000 has been given; £40 a year is the ground rent. The tenant has got a right to buy the property for a certain period of the lease on paying £1,000 down. It is not a question of the improvement as regards that particular bargain, but the lessee has got the property, and is enabled to build houses upon it because he is willing to pay the ground rent, and he has the right to become the freeholder on paying the purchase money of the property at the value at which it stood when the lease was entered into. That is the point. What happens in this case in Lancashire? Reference has been made to Bournemouth and to Wales. But all round Manchester, and all through the manufacturing districts around Liverpool, the practice is something like this: Upon this piece of land at £40 a year, worth £1,000 to start with, no fewer than twenty small houses are built at a cost of about £200 apiece. The position is that the piece of land that was worth £1,000, for which £40 a year ground rent is being paid, is now worth £5,000. That is the value of the land plus the £4,000 for the buildings. And the tenants have got the right to come and buy the landlord out for £1,000, the amount which is the value of the land. They have to pay, in case they buy, 10 per cent. duty on £4,000 the increased value of the property. That is to say £400 duty would require to be paid in the course of two or three years upon a piece of property worth £1,000. The effect of that duty falling, as it would, upon the people who have to pay for the property, is one of those things which prevent that property from ever becoming enfranchised because the transaction would not stand.
  I am exceedingly grateful to the Government for being good enough to say that they will consider this question. I assure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that we are not approaching this subject in any controversial or party spirit whatever. We have got this Reversion Duty to face. We have admitted the principle of it. Now that the Government are offering something in the way of concession upon it we must try to wipe out the difficulty arising from leasehold enfranchisement, and I beg to join the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) who appealed to the Government that in dealing with this question they should endeavour
  1488
  to do so thoroughly, and should make it clear that in all cases of bonâ fide leasehold enfranchisement no duty whatever would be paid. I may add this further argument on that point. There is no use in declining and in saying that the duty will be very small, and that you have got all the rest of the years to make up that £400, and you can deduct from it at the rate of 4 per cent. for goodness knows how many years. I dare say possibly you could whittle it down to £3 or £4; but the difficulty is that if everyone of these twenty people, who have the right to buy these twenty pieces of land and become freeholders, had to go through the process, at the time of enfranchising the piece of property, of having the duty assessed, they would be discouraged by the trouble and the annoyance and the difficulty of going into the calculations. I admit it would not be £400 to pay down. It would be £400 reducible by compound interest, and all kinds of calculations. By the way, I am told, on the very best authority—I got into communication with the Liverpool Law Society and also the Surveyors on the question—that it is practically impossible to foresee these duties for the number of years owing to the way the Clause is worded. We appeal, and I believe all sides of the House appeal, to the right hon. Gentleman to make a clean sweep of the duty which stops leasehold enfranchisement. Tax the landlord, when his lease drops in, and he becomes entitled to what have been called the allotted gains. That was the object of the tax as laid down. But the object of the tax never was to stop leasehold enfranchisement, and I do think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take his pledge a little bit further than he has done, and tell us what he will try to put in the Bill on report in order to have a clean riddance of all questions of Reversion Duty where bonâ fide enfranchisement of leasehold takes place.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I plead with the Committee. We have had nearly two hours on this Amendment. I have endeavoured to meet the views expressed. All I ask is that we may now pass on to the next Amendment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I wish to present one further consideration. The question of facilitating leasehold enfranchisement I take it is considered vitally important on both sides of the House. I fully recognise the spirit in which the Government approach the difficulties that have been

  1489
  pointed out which arise from the operation of this Bill. What I want to ask of the Financial Secretary is will he consider this question in the Clause he is going to bring up on Report from this point that whenever a lessee buys his reversion and in that way enfranchises the leasehold no Reversion Duty will be paid? I have written down a form of words, which I will hand to the right hon. Gentleman for his consideration:—
  "On the purchase by a lessee whose lease has not more than five years to run of the reversion expectant on the, determination of his lease no Reversion Duty shall be payable."
  They would meet all cases of hardship, and would meet, in the first place, the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, where the lessee exercises the option of purchase, and where there are two or three lessees, each desirous of buying up his lease in turn and becoming a freeholder—a very important thing indeed. It will also meet the case which is raised by the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Member for St. Austell. I have drafted the clause roughly for the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will kindly give it consideration. I do not ask him to accept the words now, but to give them consideration.
  Mr. W. R. PEEL: I think that this is really a special case, and I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will look into it. So far as I appreciate the point, I think the concession really goes further and cuts far deeper into the tax than perhaps is imagined. I recommend hon. Members opposite, who are very anxious to keep the tax, to look into the question, and they will see that the concession goes very much further than they think. This matter has been very largely exploited by Scotchmen and by the Lord Advocate, but Scotchmen should not interfere in English affairs more than is absolutely necessary. In Scotland they have not got the system which is carried out here, and which suits England, especially the South of England, of which I happen to be one of the representatives. We want the Lord Advocate to keep off British soil with his condemnations of our system, which we understand perhaps better than he does, and certainly it works far better than he imagines.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. CAVEmoved, in Sub-section (2) after the word "duty" ["of the full
  1490
  duty"], to add the words:—"Provided that if on such determination a term derived out of the original lease shall remain outstanding and by reason thereof the lessor shall not come into receipt of the rack-rent, then Reversion Duty shall be paid only on the actual value of the benefit accruing to the lessor on such determination, and Sub-section 2 of Section 13 of the principal Act shall not apply."
  I think the Clause is a great improvement on the Section of the Finance Act of 1909. The Government are now getting rid of Sub-section (3) of Section 14, and are putting this Section in its place. As we understand it, its operation is this: A lease of land is granted, say at £50 a year. The lessee sublets at a profit rental, say at £70 a year. Then, when the owner buys-up the original lease, of course the sublease remains, and the sub-lease itself may have a value, as if the rack-rent is something like £80 or £90 a year. When the lease is bought by the landlord he pays duty on the basis not of the rental to his lessee, but of the rack-rental and of the total value of the land when the original lease was granted, so that he is really paying duty on something that he does not get. That is a point of practice which has been brought before me more than once by business men, and which ought to receive careful consideration.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I am sure the Committee are much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having put this complicated matter with such clearness. He puts it forward, from a business point of view, as a matter which requires careful consideration, and, so far, I entirely agree with him. As I understand the point it is this: The freeholder A grants a lease to B for 99 years at a rent; and B in his turn grants a sub-lease to others for a shorter period. Then, if there is an increase in annual value in a few years, when the landlord buys up the head lease, the merger is the determination of the lease for the purpose of the Reversion Duty, which is payable by the landlord. The hon. and learned Gentleman has candidly said that the Clause in which he seeks to make an Amendment effects a real improvement in the existing law, because it is based on the principle that if a man is called upon to pay the Reversion Duty owing to the lease coming to an end prematurely, he shall not pay the same sum of money that he would pay if the lease went on to its termination; he would only pay the present value calculated on a

  1491
  4 per cent. table. The hon. Gentleman puts the point. Supposing the determination takes place, and A, the landlord, acquires the head lessee's lease, there is outstanding the sub-lease, so that in that case the landlord gets still an encumbered freehold. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that something should be done to meet that ease. It is really one of importance, and the question is what is the right thing to do. If in this case the landlord is being dealt with on some unfair and disproportionate principle, then it seems to me a very proper case for providing suitable words. It is not absolutely clear to me, at any rate at this moment, that this difference will be found to exist when one takes into account some other factors in the transaction. I am not quite clear how the balance-sheet would stand, but the matter shall receive the careful consideration of the Government, and I hope the hon. Member will give us an opportunity of consulting him on the matter. I certainly shall be very glad to have the benefit of his practical experience as to the wording of this Clause. That being so, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow us to proceed. It is not a matter which calls for discussion here if it is clearly understood on cases of hardship being shown that hardship shall be met.
  Mr. CAVE: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is willing to consider, and, if he is satisfied as to the justice of the case, that he will bring up words of his own.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Quite right. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Right of Commissioners of Inland Revenue to Appeal Against Decision of Referee.)
  It is hereby declared that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, if dissatisfied with the decision of a referee, have under Sub-section (4) of Section 33 of the principal Act a right of appeal to the High Court against the decision as persons aggrieved within the meaning of that provision.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why should the Government introduce this Bill which, on the face of it, seems to show that the
  1492
  private litigant would be severely penalised. Section 33 of the principal Act provides, first, for an appeal to the Referees, and appeals to the court, in some cases to the county council, and in cases of greater importance to the High Court. At present the owner would be served with a provisional valuation by the Commissioner. The appeal to the Referees may involve a long and expensive process, and if satisfaction is not got there may be an appeal to the High Court on questions of law, not on fact.
  Sir BUFUS ISAACS: Under Section 10 of the Act of 1894 an appeal exists both on law and fact. I was one of the Members who pressed that there should be an appeal on law and fact; and not merely a mere statement of a case on a point of law. The Act was passed giving the full right of appeal both on law and fact.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for refreshing my memory. The point, however, is really a minor one. What I had in my mind was that there is first the provisional valuation and then the appeal to the Referees, and then to the High Court and Court of Appeal. All that will involve a very long, tedious and expensive process. I submit that the Government should not take the unfortunate private litigant further, because their purse is long and his is short. The Government are satisfied with the knowledge and status of the Referees, and I submit there is no justification for giving this right of appeal to the Government as well as to the private person.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The object of the Clause is to remove a doubt, although I do not think myself that there is any real room for doubt. When the alteration was made in the appeal under the Act of 1909–10 the words used were "any person aggrieved," and the question was raised whether those words would cover the case of the Commissioners. The Referees are not Government Referees, as they were in the original Bill. In the Committee that was altered, and now they are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institute. The Clause is intended to remove any possibility of litigation on the question as to whether the Commissioners are covered by the words "any person aggrieved." In these cases you get two parties who go before the Referees, and it is rather in consequence of that that the difficulty arose.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is this simply a speculative doubt, or has it arisen in cases?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will tell you how the question arose. The matter of appeals came up, and some one raised a doubt as to whether Commissioners were "persons aggrieved." I suggested that it was desirable to remove any possibility of litigation on the point, and therefore to have a declaratory Clause. That is the sole object of putting it in.

PART II.—EXCISE.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Annual Value for the purpose of Excite Licences.)
  (1) The annual value of any premises for the purpose of the duty on any Excise licence charged by reference to annual value shall be in England and Scotland:—

  (a) the Inhabited House Duty value if there is such a value applicable; and

  (b) in a case where there is no Inhabited House Duty value applicable the Income Tax value if there is such a value applicable; and

  (c) if there is neither an Inhabited House Duty value nor an Income Tax value applicable, the annual value as determined by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in accordance with the Acts relating to Excise.

  For the purposes of this provision the Inhabited House Duty value means the value as adopted for the purposes of Inhabited House Duty, and the Income Tax value means the value as adopted for the purposes of income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1853, and the Inhabited House Duty value or the Income Tax value, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be applicable if the premises to which a value is attached for the purpose of these duties or either of them correspond with the premises the annual value of which is required for the purpose of the charge of the duty on the licence.
  (2) In Ireland the annual value of any premises for the purpose of the 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 provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section forty-three of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880.
  (3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section forty-four of the principal Act, and that sub-section shall cease to have effect.
  (4) This section shall have effect as respects licences granted after the passing of the principal Act and in force at the time of the passing of this Act; and if in respect of the period for which any such licence was granted, any sum has been paid as duty on the licence in excess of the sum which would have been paid if this section had been in force at the date of the grant of the licence, the excess shall be repaid.
  Mr. CAVEmoved in Sub-section (1), after the words "in accordance with the Acts relating to excise," to insert the words, "having regard in all cases to any decrease in annual value, resulting from any increase under the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act in the Licence Duty."
  The effect of this Amendment is to give statutory effect to a declaration made by the Secretary to the Treasury in proposing the resolution on which the Bill is founded. The right hon. Gentleman, after dealing with headings (a) and (b), said—
  "There then remained a number of cases which may be outside either one or the other definition, and the Government propose in those cases that the assessment shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, but adhering to the principle that the Licence Duty should be deducted before the actual valuation is made—shall be taken into consideration."
  It is very agreeable to have the declaration of a Minister as to what the Government intend, but it is much better to have the words in the Statute itself. I think that recent experience will confirm us in that view. I hope that no objection will be taken to the insertion of these words.
  Mr. CLANCY: I understand that the Government will accept this Amendment. The Amendment, however, will affect only England and Scotland. I presume that any concessions made on this point to those countries will in the proper place be made to Ireland also.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept the Amendment in the form in which it is proposed. The effect of it will be to carry out the recently expressed intention of the Government in respect to this matter. I also agree that the same provision should be extended to Ireland. I am not sure that the exact form of words which have been moved will do for

  1495
  Ireland; I think there will have to be some alteration. Unless some special Amendment is to be moved, hon. Members opposite may rely upon it that we shall see that due effect is given to this Amendment in regard to Ireland.
  Mr. CLANCY: I have handed in an Amendment in the name of an hon. Member who is not here, and I will take the liberty of moving it later on.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1) to add the words "except in cases where it is shown to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that in the determination of Inhabited House Duty value and Income Tax value, as the case may be, no regard has been had to any decrease in the annual value resulting from any increase under the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act in the Licence Duty."
  These words will cover two or three Amendments which appear lower on the paper. They appear to me to meet the two points which we desire to make, namely, with regard to the basis on which the duty shall be charged, and the amount to be refunded which has been overpaid during 1910–11. I have no doubt the Attorny-General will agree, if these words do not carry out those objects, to amend them on Report.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As to the intentions of the Government in this matter I quite agree with what the hon. Member has said. I think these words give effect fully to those intentions, but if they do not I give an assurance that we will consider them again, and on Report if necessary move a further clause or make such alterations as may be required. The Amendment will give effect as from October, 1910, under the Act of 1909–10, to the decrease in the annual value, thereby reducing the amount of Licence Duty which will have to be paid. By raising the Licence Duty you lower the annual value of the house. A man who has to pay a much higher Licence Duty will necessarily pay a lower rent for the house, and consequently you must give the house a lower annual value. In order to give effect to the intentions of the Government on that point this Amendment has been moved, and I accept it, so that for the future there may be removed by possibility of doubt, we having by Clause 4 made clear provision for the calculation of
  1496
  the annual valuation in the future. There will no longer be any question raised in regard to this, for if neither of the methods specified apply, then it will have to be determined by the Commissioner under the Excise Act, as it has always been. Having regard to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kingston, accepted a few moments ago by me on behalf of the Government, the result will be that whenever the Commissioners of Customs have to fix the annual value of licensed premises, they must now have regard to the higher Licence Duty which will have to be paid. This Amendment, now before the Committee, gives full effect to that. It really resolves itself into this that we are going to give effect, by accepting this Amendment, to the intention of the Government, which is to determine the annual value upon which the Licence Duty is to be ascertained. We take into account, for the purpose of fixing the annual value, that the tenant has to pay a higher Licence Duty, and, consequently, will pay a lower rental, and that, therefore, there will be a lower annual value. I hope that will satisfy the House.
  Mr. GRETTON: Of course we shall accept the assurance the Government has given us that their intentions are absolutely identical with the intention of these Amendments. These licensing matters are complicated by preceding legislation. The whole matter is exceedingly complicated, and difficult to disentangle, and it may occur that these words do not entirely carry out the intentions which the Government have very frankly and fairly expressed. With the assurance which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us it will not be necessary to move the Amendments, or to move the further Amendments on this point, of which we have given notice.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the acceptance of these Amendments which he has just announced to the Committee, increases the concession which we were told was £400,000? I understand that the present is only a technical concession, which does not increase the money allowance allocated to the trade?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Amendment gives effect to what was stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at an earlier period. It does not go beyond the £400,000. This Amendment which has been introduced simply covers the concession made already.
  Mr. YOUNGER: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to "rush us," to run away with the idea that this is a concession. It is a very proper and just revision of the original arrangement, owing to the fact that the Estimates then made and dealing with these Clauses were exceeded. This Amendment was put forward in order to give full effect to the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But let the hon. Member not forget that we have not asked and have not got any new concession on this particular matter. The general tenant on a lease entered into before 1909 will not get the benefit which he should get by a reduction of the local rates, and which he would otherwise get. As the Attorney-General knows, this is not the full concession which really would place the tenant in the same position as the landlord occupies.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. CLANCY: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the words: "and having regard in all cases to any decrease in the annual value resulting from any increase owing to the provision of the principal Act in the Licensing Duty."
  This Amendment is similar to that accepted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, and deals with Ireland only. It is for the Government to do for Ireland what they have done for England and Scotland.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I accept the Amendment, which carries out with regard to Ireland what we already agreed to for England and Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4) to leave out the words "the passing of the principal Act and in force at the time of the passing of this Act; and," and to insert instead thereof the words, "April 30th, 1909." The object of this Amendment is to bring in the licences for the year 1909–10—that is to say, these licences which in England are granted in September, 1909, and in Scotland in the previous May. I move this Amendment simply in order to apply retrospectively the principle admitted by the Government. It has been admitted, and I am bound to say handsomely admitted, that we had in this Clause a principle that worked harshly, and they made the concession. I do not say the concession goes far enough. I only say that the Government has fairly met
  1498
  us on that point, and I ask that there should be some provision not only against exaction in the future but there should be restitution for the past. The Licence Duties have been based upon what is now admitted to be excess in the previous year, and my Amendment provides that that principle admitted by the Government should be retrospective and that the excess should be repaid not merely for the current year but for the previous year.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The effect of this Amendment is practically to apply the same principle to licences in 1909–10 as the Government are applying to licences in 1910–11. I can hardly believe that the Government will not accept this principle. It is the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Channell in the Wrigglesworth case, in which he pointed out that the only honest way in which the Government could propose to interpret the Act was by the acceptance of such principle. The judge said that the Act was operating "in a way that no body of honourable men could have deliberately intended." The learned judge's contention was that they could not continue to charge these new licences in the way they proposed. All that is asked by the Amendment is that the Government should concede from the beginning and should apply the same principle to the 1909–10 licences that they are prepared to apply in the current year. I cannot under stand how the Government can refuse this. They admit they have received money which honourable men ought not to have received, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his reasons—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Chanceller of the Exchequer never said what the hon. Gentleman attributes to him.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Perhaps not in my words. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he must retain the money for fiscal reasons, and he said:—
  "I should like to say one word in regard to public-house valuation referred to by an hon. Member, who said very properly that we were charging upon a higher value a year ago, and have now decided to charge upon a different principle. It is purely a financial matter."
  That was his reason, and he went on to say:—
  "That year we wanted certain revenue, and we were strictly entitled to it. This year we are content with less, and we have altered the system, which we are perfectly at liberty to do. It is a financial matter and the Treasury is entitled to choose either method without being open to any reflection that it is anything unfair."
  The Chancellor says "it is purely a financial matter," but he has admitted that the money has been obtained, I will not say on

  1499
  false pretences, but on a wrong principle. The Government have admitted that by their action to-day—
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. Member says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated this was done upon a wrong principle. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have said he was making the concession because he was in a position this year to make a concession which he could not make the year before.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Government, by the alteration they are making in this Bill, admit they were wrong, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted it. Why make the alteration otherwise. All I am asking of the Government to do is to apply the same principle from the beginning that they are applying in the present year. I do not see how they can get out of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is purely a financial matter, and that he wanted the money last year, and could not do without it last year; but he was taking money upon a wrong principle last year.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: He never said that.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: He must admit it, because he is making an alteration in this Bill which shows that he did not obtain the money upon a proper principle, and surely he cannot logically say that he ought not to apply the principle this year to the previous year. I hope the Attorney-General will see that what I am putting forward is reasonable. The Government estimated for an increased Licence Duty in 1909 of £2,100,000. The duty actually produced £2,450,000, so that they got an excess of £350,000, and what we say is that it is unjust that the Government should keep that money. It has been obtained from the licence holders on a principle which the Government now admit was wrong. They could not do anything else in view of the judgment of Mr. Justice Channell.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is a matter for the House of Commons.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I am quoting the words of an English judge which we on this side of the House believe to be worthy of consideration. Mr. Justice Channell said that it was obviously unjust and said that the course was one which no body of honourable men could have intended
  1500
  After words like that from a judge on the English Bench it was impossible for the Government to adhere to that principle. I do not see how you can say to those who have contributed this money that the principle is a right one when the Government now admit by this Bill that it is an improper principle. I beg to support the Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I think the remarks of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. S. Roberts) are somewhat ungenerous. He has charged the Government with refusing to admit that they obtained this money on a wrong principle because they are now willing to make the concession in this House—as was admitted at the time very fully and very frankly made in order that these licenced duties might not operate with as much severity as they had done last year, when the Government found they were in a position to make a concession of some £400,000. The hon. Member who has just spoken has called upon us to accept his view not on the ground of any argument he has addressed to us, but because a learned judge who tried the case said that no body of honourable men can have intended this, and therefore there is an end of all argument.
  Mr. YOUNGER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not intended to be so harsh, and the judge said the same thing.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had not intended that they should operate with such severity, or that they had operated with greater severity than he intended. I am not finding fault with the language of the learned judge. What I am objecting to is it being put upon the House of Commons that because the learned Judge had said in his view no body of honourable men could have intended this, that if we accept the duties paid in the previous years we shall be acting as a body of dishonourable men.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: The Attorney General is misinterpretating what I said. I said that you ought to make this principle equitable from the beginning and not charge one set of people one price one year and another price another.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am glad the hon. Member has made that explanation, which I accept in the spirit in which he has made it. It now makes it possible

  1501
  to deal with his argument upon a different basis. This Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, and he proposes that it should take effect as from the 30th April, 1909. That would cover a longer period than the increase of the duties would affect.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I understand that the Act came into force last May, and it had a retrospective effect upon the licences granted. I have taken the 30th April in order to cover the Scotch case.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I understand the Amendment of the hon. Member is that the same concession should be made for 1909–10 as was made for the year 1910–11. The answer to that is that the Government cannot possibly accept it. We have gone as far as we can in the concession we have made amounting to £400,000 for last year. As the hon. Member showed in quoting the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Government were able to do this for financial reasons. I protest against the motion that because the Government makes a concession when it finds it can do so in a particular year, that therefore it should be said it has given up the principle upon which the Licence Duties were collected in the previous year. If that argument were pursued to its logical conclusion, it would make it impossible for the Government to grant any concessions at all. How does this matter stand? The position is that the Government has found that during last year (1910–1911) we have received £2,450,000, and what we anticipated was £2,100,000. The Government found itself in the position of saying, "Well, we will give back some of this money which has come in excess of what we estimated for the Licence Duties; fortunately we are in a position to do so." There are years in which the Government is not in a position to give back any money which comes into the Treasury, but on the other hand you may have a year in which you can do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "This is one of those years. The duties have operated with greater severity than I intended, and I am willing to give back this £400,000." I have had myself the opportunity of being present at an influential deputation on this matter. I was with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when that deputation came to him immediately after the Wrigglesworth judgment, when he made the statement which has been read in the House this
  1502
  evening, that he would make this concession, and that he would submit the Clause of the Bill. It was submitted. I do not say that that Clause binds this House, but the trade was not dissatisfied with what was done under the circumstances, and it is a little hard, in view of all that has taken place that the Government should now be attacked with some sort of suggestion that we have taken money under false pretences.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I said "upon a wrong principle."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: All that the Government has admitted and is admitting is that it has got more money for 1910–11 than it desired or intended from the licensed trade, and therefore it was willing to make a concession. I want to make it quite clear that that is the beginning and the end of the concession the Government is willing to make, and in making that concession we are going quite as far as we ought to go. I am not dealing with the point of any of these licence holders who have paid increased Licence Duty before the 29th April, 1910, getting back any of the money they paid in 1909. That does not seem to me to be the question before the Committee. The question is really to what extent the Government is willing to make a concession in the sense of returning money which it has already received. I have expressed the full extent of the concession the Government is willing to make, and if we had had this kind of argument before we announced our willingness to make this concession I am sure we should have found a considerable body of opposition on this side of the House to making any concession at all. I ask the Committee to rest satisfied with what has been done, and bear in mind what was said on this point by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), and the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton), both of whom are better exponents of the views of the trade than the hon. Members who last spoke, and who expressed themselves as not being dissatisfied with what the Government had done, and who certainly thought we had met the matter in a very fair, full and frank spirit. I do hope, therefore, those two hon. Gentlemen having expressed that view, that we need not have a lengthy discussion on this Amendment, but that we may proceed with the next Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman has based his argument on a false premise. I am prepared to show that,

  1503
  because I happen to be the hon. Member who had an Amendment down which, if it had been accepted when the Budget was before the House, would have avoided all this dispute. The hon. and learned Gentleman says the Government have made a concession, and that, having made that concession because they happen at this moment to be in a fortunate pecuniary position, it is not right or fair on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House or on the part of the Trade to ask for any further concession. I venture to say the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman is founded on a misapprehension of the facts. I am prepared to prove it is no concession at all. When the Clause was before the House in the Budget of 1909–10 I moved an Amendment to leave out the words at the end upon which the judge commented, and my Amendment was refused by Sir Samuel Evans.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Section 44, Subsection (1).
  Sir F. BANBURY: Yes. "The duty on the licence is not to be allowed as a deduction." I moved to leave out those words. If the answer of the Government had been that those words meant something, and were intended to impose a tax upon the licensed victuallers, and that therefore they could not accept my Amendment, then the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been justified in coming down to this House and saying they found those words had brought to them a greater sum of money than they expected, and that though they could not return the money they had already received yet, being in a better pecuniary position at the present time, they would be prepared to return the money in the future. But that is not what they did. Sir Samuel Evans got up and assured the Committee that those words had no effect, and did not alter the law. Of course, we were in a difficult position, being only laymen, in arguing with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we said, "Supposing your contention is correct, and we have no right to assume it is not, that these words have no effect, why will you not accept our Amendment, and leave them out?"
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is arguing a question which has been already decided. The only question on this Amendment is whether there should be a back reckoning.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is my point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced, as an argument for not allowing the rebate for the year that is passed, that it was a concession on the part of the Government to allow the rebate for the present year. I am pointing out that it was not a concession on the part of the Government, and that, therefore, the contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman falls to the ground. I have got to prove whether or not my statement is correct, and, in proving my statement is correct, it is necessary for me to go back to the original Act and to show that the Government, instead of bringing in the original Act with the idea of obtaining money, brought in this particular Act having stated by their own Solicitor-General that it had no effect. The Solicitor-General advanced the argument that the words proposed to be left out had no meaning whatever, and did not alter the law. If that is correct and they did not alter the law, no concession has been made. That is my point. It is a very serious matter. I do not want for a moment to delay the proceedings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] If the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who interrupt felt the burden of the tax they would be the very first people to howl. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the trade were satisfied. May I correct that. I happened to be dining with a member of the trade, and he informs me that if this question was raised in the House of Commons, I was at liberty to say that the trade were not satisfied. On the contrary, they took what they could get. They thought they had been unjustly treated on the very ground I have just advanced. It is not a concession; it is a grudging recognition that, having stated in the House of Commons what turned out to be incorrect, they are obliged to eat their words and to surrender to the trade that which they ought never to have taken.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: The learned Attorney-General, it seems to me, has given away the defence to this Amendment. He has displayed a certain amount of virtuous indignation and has accused us of having looked what he obviously thinks is a gift horse in the mouth. He admits the Government received £350,000 last year more than they expected or intended when they first put these clauses into the Act. He admits these taxes have pressed more heavily upon the licensed trade than was intended

  1505
  when they were first brought in. There are two questions: first, whether the Government ought to make the repeal retrospective, as is suggested by this Amendment; and, secondly, whether they can do so? I think it is relevant with regard to the first question to consider what the judge who tried the Wriggles worth case said on the subject. He said he did not think this House could have deliberately intended to make the tax in the form in which it passed into law, and I do not think the House did deliberately intend to make it in that form. "We are not, as the learned Attorney - General said, taking our morals from a judge. We are masters of our own morals, and are entitled to come to our own conclusions. What the judge said was something to support the morality of this House, because he says they have raised by the form deliberately intended, and the Attorney General has admitted it was not deliberately intended by this House, because he said the Government have raised by the form of taxation £350,000 more than they intended. The question whether we ought to make this retrospective seems to me to be disposed of. We now come to the other question whether we can do so and whether the financial position in which we find ourselves permits of the retrospective action of this Amendment. I submit that it does. We do not know, we shall not know until the Budget is brought in, exactly what will be the surplus arising from the taxation of this year, but we do know that it must amount to several millions. I have seen it estimated—the Secretary to the Treasury will probably correct me if I am wrong—I may not, however, succeed in drawing him—but it has been estimated that the surplus revenue will be anything from three to four millions. I am quite modest, because I do not need even one-tenth of that sum to make it possible for the Government to act up to the elementary obligation of justice which requires that when you take money by mistake you should at the earliest possible moment restore it to its original owner.
  Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I listened with the greatest interest to what was said by the Attorney-General, and I candidly confess I am greatly disappointed at the attitude he took up. This matter can be brought to a simple test. The method under which public-houses are assessed for the Licence Duty at the present time is either a just or an unjust
  1506
  principle. If it is just why alter it? If it is an unjust principle, then you are surely bound to restore to the people from whom you have exacted this money, money which has been extracted from them on an unjust principle. The real facts which govern the whole situation are these. When this Clause was before the House, and when the Budget was passed, it was distinctly understood by the House, on the authority of the Solicitor-General of that day, that these words had no effect and that they did not alter the existing practice in the least. As a matter of fact it afterwards turned out that they did alter the practice altogether, and the result was that a very large sum of money was collected which it was never intended should be collected, if the words had not had the effect it was found they did have. That being so, it seems to me if you admit the present system is unfair and consequently alter it, you ought, on exactly the same ground, to restore this money which has been exacted from the trade, and which it was never intended to take from it. Let me refer to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman put the matter perfectly simply in a communication which was sent to the Press after his interview with the trade. He said distinctly that he was satisfied that this decision would operate in certain cases with greater severity than was intended. These are the important words. Why not go back to the spirit of the intention? If you say you did not intend this, you are bound not only to alter the method for the future, but also to make restitution of what was collected contrary to the intention of Parliament. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on perfectly different grounds—I heard him the other night when the Resolutions upon which this Bill is based were in Committee of Ways and Means—takes the ground that last year they wanted money, and therefore they collected this revenue. But this year they will be content with less because they have plenty of money otherwise. I venture to say a more shocking financial principle was never enunciated in this House. It is simply the principle of highway robbery. Nobody would be a highway robber if he had plenty of money. It is only when he has no money that a man becomes a highway robber. When he has plenty he simply says, "I do not need to take any more." The proper principle is to restore the money which has been exacted contrary to anticipation and intention, and on a principle admitted by the Chancellor of

  1507
  the Exchequer to be unjust. I confess that so far as I am concerned I am disappointed that the Government have not gone a step further, and in addition to altering the law for the future have also agreed to make restitution of what has been taken in the past. If my hon Friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him in the Lobby.
  Mr. GRETTON: I think it my duty to correct a misapprehension which appears to be in the mind of the Attorney-General. He has described the concession of the Government as a concession which satisfies the licenced trade. I cannot allow him to remain under any such impression as that; no doubt the interpretation which the Government have decided to put on this Clause is satisfactory, and I thank them for the way in which they have met us in that respect, but I would inform the Attorney-General that in the licensed trade there is a great grievance still existing; they feel that they have been subjected to unjust burdens, and they will continue to protest against them and do their best to relieve themselves of the overwhelming burdens imposed upon them by this Budget. The Attorney-General made one point which has not yet been dealt with, and that was in reference to the difficulty of making the concession asked for in this Amendment. He says it could be done in this financial year, but not in the financial year which preceded it. I beg to submit to the Government that owing to their own financial arrangements they have combined the finances of two years, and the two years' finance being inextricably interwoven, nothing should prevent them returning out of the surplus which they will have in twelve months ending 31st March next the money which they have taken unjustly from the trade. I think the argument of the Attorney-General therefore falls to the ground, and the Government, having introduced new financial principles, there can be no difficulty in their making arrangements to return the money which has been, according to their own statements, extracted from the licensed trade contrary to their intentions.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I want to enter a protest in a very few words against the "injured innocence" attitude adopted by the Attorney-General. The history of this matter is perfectly plain, and it should be clearly placed on record that the Government did mislead the House—I do not say
  1508
  intentionally—but in fact and in effect they did mislead the House of Commons as to the particular burden which they were imposing on a certain trade. I think it is only fair that in this matter the Committee should clear from their minds any questions as to the particular trade upon which this burden was imposed. This is purely an abstract matter which we are arguing, as to the justice or injustice of making a particular return to individuals. I hope that hon. Members opposite, in considering this question, will clear their minds of the point whether the trade-affected happens to be one which they like or dislike. The fact is the Government misled the House into imposing a burden which the House did not intend to impose. That cannot be denied, because there are the words on record in which the House of Commons was told that these words would not alter the present administration of the law, and they have been proved to alter it. Can that be denied? That being so, the House of Commons was misled into imposing a tax which it did not intend to impose. The Government, now finding that they did mislead the House of Commons, instead of coming and making confession, and standing in a white sheet, as they clearly ought to do while admitting that they misled the House, and the consequences were not disastrous to them, but on the contrary, they increased their revenue at the expense of certain individuals—instead, while admitting that, of expressing some regret for it, the Government come down to this House and claim some credit for having made a virtuous concession, and having given a grant to the trade out of the goodness of their hearts. The Attorney-General said the trade did not seem dissatisfied, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at it he will see that that probably arose from the impression which the trade, and not the trade alone, have derived of the character of the present Government. The trade remembered whom they were going to, and they remembered the fiscal history of the present Government. Therefore, they were very easily satisfied, and were glad to get any concession at all at the end, although it was not given as a matter of justice. They were glad to get anything from a Government which is past considering the justice of any tax which it imposes. There are certain rules of justice which cannot fairly be departed from, and the moment you depart from those rules you get into these difficulties and troubles.

  1509
  I feel the Government has not justified an attitude which, indeed, is unjustifiable, and against which I wish to enter my protest.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I understand the position is this. The Government and the Attorney-General have admitted their misdeeds in substance, if not in words. They admit that they have got money during the year 1910–11 which they ought never to have obtained, and from persons who ought not to have been called upon to pay it. They admit that they got it by improper methods, and they say that for that year we pay back what we think we ought never to have received. That is for the year 1910–11, and I say they admit their misdeeds, because if they had not done wrong, surely as custodians of the public purse they would not pay back money which they rightly obtained. Therefore they admit it was wrongfully obtained, and if they profited wrongfully in 1910–11 they obtained it equally wrongfully in 1909–10. But while they pay the sums wrongfully obtained in 1910–11, why should they not, and in candour and honesty also, say that they got the sums wrongfully in 1909–10, and offer to pay them back. I put it to the Attorney-General that he cannot draw any distinction between the two years, and their is every reason why if they pay in one year they should pay in another. I am quite open to conviction if
  the Attorney-General can convince me, and perhaps he will be good enough to offer some argument as to why this extraordinary, and, on the face of it, inconsistent course has been followed by the Government whose duty after all is not to rob taxpayers, but to collect taxes in accordance with the law.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The hon. Gentleman appealed to me to withdraw this Amendment, but I am sorry to say that I cannot see my way to follow his suggestion. The true reading of his argument is that you need only pay your honourable debts when it is convenient. He admits that it was right to pay for this year, but if the collection was wrong for one year it must have been wrong for the other. The whole trouble arises from Section 44 of the principal Act, and I am sure the Postmaster-General will not get up and say that he intended that section to have the meaning which it did have when it was argued before Mr. Justice Channell. I am sure it was a mistake from the beginning, and the Government having acknowledged it for one year ought to correct it for the other year also.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 130.

  Division No. 45.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Field, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Adamson, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clough, William

  Furness, Stephen

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Glanville, H. J.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bernes, G. N.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Barton, W.

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Hackett, J.

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dillon, John

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Boland, John Plus

  Doris, W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duffy, William J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furnese)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hayward, Evan

  Brady, P. J.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Elverston, H.

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

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Falconer, J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Buxton, Rt. Hon Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hughes, S. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Rowlands, James

  Johnson, W.

  Nolan, Joseph

  St. Maur, Harold

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Keating, M.

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitherc)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Grady, James

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Malley, William

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Leach, Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sutton, John E.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax).

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Logan, John William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Toulmin, George

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, T.

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wadsworth, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pointer, Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Radford, G. H.

  Webb, H.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rainy, A. Rowland

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Masterman, C. P. G.

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Mathias, Richard

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Redmond, William (Clara)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Richards, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Morton, Alphous Cleophas

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Neilson, Francis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Astor, Waldorf

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lewsham, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Macmaster, Donald

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fell, Arthur

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Barnston, H.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Forster, Henry William

  Moore, William

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Benu, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Gretton, John

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

  Boyton, J.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Harris, Henry Percy

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Hickman, Colonel T.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hills, J. W.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cator, John

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rice, Hon. W.

  Cava, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Royds, Edmund

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  1512

  1513

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Winterton, Earl

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Spear, John Ward

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Stanier, Seville

  Valentia, Viscount

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leles., Melton)

  Stavelay-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

  Younger, George

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Stewart, Gorshom

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Samuel Roberts and Mr. Pollock.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Swift, Rigby

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Recovery of Instalments of Unpaid Duty on Licence in Force at Time of Passing of Act.)
  Where since the date of the passing of the principal Act any licence on which duty is charged under Part II. of that Act and which is in force at the time of the passing of this Act has been granted on payment of a portion only of the duty, whether in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of Section forty-nine of the principal Act or not, any portion of the duty not paid may, without prejudice to the operation of the said sub-section in cases where that sub-section is applicable, be recovered from the licence-holder as a debt due to His Majesty.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I should like the Secretary to the Treasury or the Attorney-General to state the meaning of this Clause. I do not quite understand it.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: This Clause is necessary in order that we may be able to recover the instalments which, as a matter of concession, were allowed in the Act. Instead of the duty being paid in one sum it could be paid by instalments. It is necessary to have this provision in order that we may recover instalments of unpaid duty. It does not change the law in any way. It only gives us the power which we have not got until we pass this Clause. A considerable time elapsed between the introduction of the Bill and its passing into law.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: But surely it is provided for in Section 49 of the principal Act, Sub-section (3), which provides for the instalments and at the end says:—
  "In default of the payment of the second instalment of the duty the licence shall cease to be in force."
  Therefore the safeguard for the payment is the cancellation of the licence.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 137.

  Division No. 46.]

  AYES.

  [10.3 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Byles, W. Pollard

  Essex, Richard Waiter

  Adamson, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Falconer, James

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Chancellor, H. G

  Fenwick, Charles

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Ferens, T. R.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Ffronch, Peter

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clough, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Barnes, G. N.

  Clynes, John R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Barton, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Beale, William Philpson

  Cotton, William Francis

  Glanville, H. J.

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Crumley, Patrick

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Bentham, George J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. A.

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Delany, William

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Dillon, John

  Hackett, J.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Doris, W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. Rochdale

  Brace, William

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Brady, P. J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir H.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Eiverston, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Worrell, Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, James

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

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

  Holt, R. D.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Neilson, Francis

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Shortt, Edward

  John, Edward Thomas

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Johnson, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Jones, Henry Hayden (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, William (Arfon)

  O'Dowd, John

  Snowden, P.

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

  O'Grady, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Keating, M.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Malley, William

  Summers, J. W.

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Toulmin, George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Trevelyan, Charles P.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Logan, John William

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pickersgill, E. H.

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Lundon, T.

  Pirie, Duncan v.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Ward, W. D. (Southampton)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Pollard, Sir G. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Macnaman, Dr. T. J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Watt, Henry A

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Webb, H.

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Radford, G. H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Laren, H. D (Lines., Spalding)

  Rainy, A. Rowland

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

  Raphael, Sir H. H.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Mathias, Richard

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Montagu, Hon E. S.

  Robinson, Sidney

  NOES.

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

  Cave, George

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Actor, Waldorf

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hills, J. W.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Barnston, H.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hohler, G. F.

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fleming, Valentine

  Kerry, Earl of

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Forster, Henry William

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Bird, A.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Boyton, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Butcher, J. G. (York)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mildmay, F. B.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Grant, J. A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Cassel, Felix

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cator, John

  Guinness, Hen. W. E.

  Mount, William Arthur

  1516

  1517

  Noville, Reginald J. N.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Royds, Edmund

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Paterofield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sanders, Robert A.

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanier, Beville

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Younger, George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Swift, Rigby

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir F. Banbury and Col. Griffith-Boscawen.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Sections 4, 25 and 27 of 1 and 2 William IV. c. 32 not to apply to live game birds in certain cases.)
  Sections 25 and 27 of the Game Act, 1831 (which relate to sales of game by and purchases of game from persons other than licensed dealers), and so much of Section 4 of the same Act as makes it an offence for any person to buy or sell or have in his house, possession, or control birds of after game the dates therein specified, shall not apply where the game is live game, and the person buying, selling, or having in his house, possession, or control the game, or the person from whom or by whom the game is bought or sold, is keeping or intending to keep the game solely for the purpose of breeding or for sale alive.
  The Amendments made by this section shall have effect in the Game Act, 1831, as applied by any subsequent enactment as well as in that Act as, originally enacted.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg to move to leave out the words "birds of after game" ["to buy or sell or have in his house, possession, or control, birds of after game"], and to insert instead thereof the words "birds of game after." This Amendment is necessary in order to correct a ridiculous printer's error.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will give some explanation why this Amendment is necessary.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I quite agree that the words as they stand are ridiculous, and that the Clause ought to be put right in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. The necessity for the Clause arises out of
  1518
  a judgment which was recently given as to the legality of a private person on his own property having game birds in or upon an enclosure for the purpose of breeding, even if he has no intention of selling or of dealing in them in any way. I shall be willing to give a further explanation if it is necessary to do so. If the Committee agree to the Amendment they will obviate the difficulty in which persons are placed who have game birds in their possession, and who are not intentionally breaking the law.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I suggest that it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should define what he means by "birds of game"?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It will read like this: "control of birds of game after".
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: That only adds to the confusion. There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would like the right hon. Gentleman to define for us what he means by a game bird.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The whole of this Clause is an Amendment of the Game Act of 1831, in which, under Sections 14, 25, and 27 there are all sorts of provisions which were originally intended to apply to dead game, and which have now been decided to apply to live game. In order to get rid of that difficulty this Clause is moved. I shall be very glad to go into a full explanation, but I do not think it is required.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think a discussion on the Clause can be taken on an Amendment of the drafting.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I point out that the word "of," which is inserted here is not wanted. If you will read it carefully you will find that it is not wanted.
  Sir F. BANBURY: As you have already put the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, it is impossible to amend it. It cannot now be a draftsman's error. It must be an error of the Government. Under these circumstances, having made this error, the Clause will be unintelligible.
  Earl WINTERTON: Might I suggest as a way out of the difficulty we have got into owing to the slackness of the Government, that the Clerk at the Table should be directed now to read out the Clause.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
  Earl WINTERTON: I heard you put the question, but the question is—what is the Clause? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), there is still a draftsman's error in the Clause as it stands. In order to elucidate the proceedings in Committee, I would suggest that the Clerk at the Table should be asked to read out the Clause as amended.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There is no necessity for amending words. Clause 6 will run in this way: "as makes it an offence for any person to buy or sell or have in his house possession or control birds," etc. I have consulted the Deputy-Chairman, and that is the way in which he put the Amendment, and that is the way in which the Clause now runs. The Noble Lord was quite right in wishing to have the error rectified.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not object to the Clause in the way the right hon. Gentleman read it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I take it that if we have cold storage, and there are live birds—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Live birds are not taken to cold storage.
  Mr. J. HOPE: That is exactly my point. My right hon. Friend, in framing his
  1520
  Amendment to the Game Act, has considered the question of keeping birds shot within the lawful time, and then there is the question of cold storage and of birds kept within the ten days.—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  Mr. SANDERS: I want to protest against the idea of keeping live game inside the house.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We do not deprive any person of that privilege.

PART III.—INCOME TAX.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Assessment and recovery of part of Super-tax from wife in certain cases.)
  (1) Where a husband is required under Sub-section (2) of Section seventy-two of the principal Act, to make a return of his total income from all sources for the purpose of Super-tax and part of that total income is the income of his wife, the Special Commissioners may, if for any reason they consider that they are unable to obtain a satisfactory return of the wife's income from the husband, require the wife to make a return of her income, and in that case the wife shall be under the like obligation to make a return under the said section as if she were not married, and the husband shall be relieved from any obligation to make such a return as respects the income of the wife.
  (2) Where Super-tax is charged in a case where the wife has been required to make a return under the foregoing provision, such part of the total sum payable in respect of the Super-tax as bears the same proportion to that total sum as the wife's income bears to the total income in respect of which Super-tax is charged shall be assessed on and recoverable from the wife in lieu of the husband.
  (3) This section shall have effect with respect to the Super-tax charged for the year beginning the sixth day of Aprils nineteen hundred and nine, and for any subsequent year as if it had been contained in the principal Act, and the provisions of that Act with regard to the assessment and collection of Super-tax, and the penalties for failure to make a return, shall apply accordingly.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I desire to move an Amendment which stands in the name of

  1521
  my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson). I have a new Clause on the paper dealing with the point, but I propose to move this Amendment, to leave out from the word "wife" ["is the income of his wife"], and to insert the words "then the incomes of husband and wife shall be treated as separate incomes for the purpose of Super-tax." I submit that is a reasonable Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have considered the matter. The Amendment is not in order.
  Mr. GOLDMANmoved, in Sub-section (2), after "income" ["wife's income bears to the total income"] to leave out the words "in respect of which Super-tax is charged."
  The Committee will remember that when the Budget Resolution was moved the reason for reopening the whole question of the Super-tax was that a difficulty had arisen, and it was desired to overcome that. In several cases women had refused to state their income apart from the husband's for the purpose of the Super-tax. In view of that explanation, I should say it must be the intention of the Government and of those who are responsible for the framing of the Bill, that those intentions should be expressed and that the married woman should not be subjected to an undue penalty which she would be if the words were retained. Let me illustrate the point. A woman has an independent income of £2,000, and her husband has an income of £4,000. The amount subject to Super-tax would be £3,000. Under the Clause as it stands the woman would have to bear two-thirds of the Super-tax, while her income is only one-third of the total amount. If the words do not bear that interpretation, do they mean that the Super-tax shall apply only in respect of the total income of £6,000? In that case I say that the words are merely redundant and unnecessary. If they are omitted the whole Clause will be clearer than it stands. I understand that the Amendment is accepted, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: In defence of the Government draftsman, may I say that if the hon. Member will look carefully at Section 66, Subjection (1) of the Finance Act, he will find those words are really right as they stand. But there is no objection at all to the Amendment, and we gratefully accept the suggestion the hon. Member makes.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether I am right in assuming that the effect of this Amendment is that the £3,000 may be deducted not only from the aggregate income of the husband and wife, but from the income of the husband if it had not been aggregated, and from the income of the wife if it had not been aggregated.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The effect will be as the hon. Member who moved desires. Supposing the wife has £2,000 income of her own, and that the husband has £4,000 income of his own. Super-tax is payable only on £3,000. The intention of the Clause, as made perfectly clear by the Amendment, is that the wife should pay two-sixths, or one-third, and that the husband should pay four-sixths, or two-thirds of the total amount.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is not my point. What I thought was that, where a wife had £6,000 and a husband had £6,000, that the two are added together and only £3,000 is deducted; whereas, if the wife had £6,000 and her sister had £6,000 that a sum of £6,000 is deducted. I understand that that is not the effect of the Amendment.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The effect is as I have stated.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is deducted from the total.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is it quite clear that the words "total income" are sufficient, or is it not necessary to say "of husband and wife"?
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I will consider that.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to payment of Income Tax in any year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year.)
  (1) Where in any Income Tax year any half-yearly or quarterly payments have-been made on account of any dividend, interest, or other annual profits or gains, previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year, and Income Tax has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom, or has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom at the rate ultimately charged for the said year, the amount not so charged or deducted shall be charged under Schedule D. in respect

  1523
  of those payments as profits or gains not charged by virtue of any other Schedule, in accordance with the provisions contained in the sixth case of Schedule D in Section one hundred of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and the agents entrusted with the payment of the dividends, interest, or other annual profits or gains shall furnish a list containing the names and addresses of the persons to whom payments have been made, and the amount of those payments, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, upon a requisition made by the Commissioners in that behalf.
  (2) Any person liable to pay any rent, interest, or annuity, or to make any other annual payment, shall be authorised to make any deduction on account of Income Tax for any Income Tax year which he has failed to make previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year, or to make up any deficiency in any such deduction which has been so made on the occasion of the next payment of the rent, interest, or annuity, or making of the other annual payment after the passing of the Act so imposing the tax, in addition to any other deduction which he may be by law authorised to make, and shall also be entitled, if there is no future payment from which the deduction may be made, to recover the sum which might have been deducted as if it were a debt due from the person as against whom the deduction could originally have been made if the Act imposing Income Tax for the year bad been in force.
  (3) Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax shall be deemed to be a legal charge or deduction so far as it does not exceed the charge or deduction which might have been made if the Act imposing the tax had been in force.
  (4) In this section the expression "Income Tax year" means the year beginning the sixth day of April.
  Mr. FELLmoved, at the end of Subsection (1), to add the words, "and the amount overcharged or overpaid, in consequence of a reduction in the rate of Income Tax, shall in the same way be repaid to the said agents to be returned to the persons entitled to the same."
  This Clause is necessary, as I understand, owing to the period of the year in which Budgets are now passed. We are at present discussing a Budget which in ordinary circumstances would have gone
  1524
  through last June or July, and in those circumstances such a Clause was not necessary. But now a considerable period frequently elapses between the time when the agents collect the Income Tax and the time when the amount of the tax is finally decided by this House. Consequently the amounts collected by the agents may be incorrect owing to the rate at which they have deducted being different from that finally decided upon. This Clause is drafted to enable the Government to obtain from these bankers or others the amount short-paid owing to the Income Tax being levied at a higher rate. If it cuts that way, it must also cut the other way. If by any chance the Income Tax is reduced, and the bankers have charged or deducted from the dividends too much, the amount overcharged ought, in common fairness, to be repaid to the people entitled to it. The Clause as drafted applies only when the tax is increased. I think it ought to apply also when the tax is reduced, as we hope it may at some time be.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. Gentleman has called attention to a matter which, of course, is one for consideration. But if he will be so good as to look at the Clause he will, I think, see that that which he is proposing is not really an Amendment to the first Sub-section of the Clause in question. The first Sub-section deals with this case. Perhaps he will allow me to give an illustration which will make the matter easier to follow. Everyone here knows that when one is paid a dividend or gets an income of that kind, in most cases Income Tax is deducted at the source. The banker or the limited company, as the case may be, deducts it. But there may be cases—there are sometimes cases—in which dividends or the like are paid without deduction at the source; so that the recipient gets his dividend or the like without any deduction at all. If the hon. Member will look again he will see that the first Sub-section provides that in cases where a person receives a dividend or the like without deduction having been made, he—the recipient—shall be liable to make returns for Income Tax in respect of that particular dividend. It does so happen that under the existing law there is no provision for that. It is merely to stop a gap in the Act which everyone would wish to stop.
  Mr. FELL: May I call attention to this: "Or has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom at the rate," and so on.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The sub-section runs in this way:—"Where in any Income Tax year, any half-yearly or quarterly payments have been made on account of any dividend, interest, or any other profits, or gains, previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year"—referring, as the hon. Member rightly says, to the fact that the Finance Act does not get the Royal Assent before April 6th—"and Income Tax has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom, or has not been charged thereon, or deducted therefrom…Schedule D… upon a requisition made by the Commissioners in that behalf." That is quite following the ordinary practice. If, after April 6th, Messrs. Rothschild pay over a dividend without themselves having deducted the Income Tax at the source, then this sub-section provides that the recipient shall calculate it in his return, in order that Income Tax may be charged upon it.
  Mr. FELL: If Messrs. Rothschild deduct 1s. 2d. and the Income Tax is subsequently one shilling?
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I quite follow the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to shirk the point. I only want to have the thing correct. The hon. Member will see in the first instance that the first Sub-section has nothing to do with the agent either paying the tax or getting it back; it is merely a provision that the recipient should make a return of assessment, but if he will look at Sub-section (3) of the Clause he will see that the very thing he wants is already secured. The sub-section says:—
  "Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax "—
  Say in the month of May—
  "Shall be deemed to be a legal charge or deduction, so far as it does not exceed the charge or deduction which might have been made if the Act imposing the tax had been in force."
  Suppose that in any year it is proposed to reduce the Income Tax from, say, 1s. to 9d., and that the Finance Act does not get the Royal Assent until the July or August following, it may be that the banker or company has subtracted the 1s., whereas, if he had waited a few months, he ought only to have deducted 9d. Subsection (3) provides that the deduction of
  1526
  1s. shall only be deemed to be a legal deduction so far as it does not exceed the rate of Income Tax ultimately fixed by the Act. In other words, 9d. is a legal deduction; 3d., is illegal; and, as often happens when there is a reduction of Income Tax, the money is returned to the extent to which it was not authorised by the Finance Act. I think the hon. Gentleman will find—though I sympathise with his intention and recognise his good faith—that Sub-section (1) does not deal with the matter he has in his mind, but Sub-section (3) does what he wants. It validates and authorises the anticipatory deduction only in so far as it is authorised by the Finance Act when it becomes law.
  Mr. FELL: I am much obliged, and I think the Solicitor-General's explanation is clear, but I do not think the Bill is. It is very clear as to what as to be done if one has not paid enough. If you have overpaid, Sub-section (3) means that you can sue your bankers for what they have overcharged. Why should not the Crown repay?
  Mr. BUTCHER: I quite follow the point put by the learned Solicitor-General. But I put this point. If too much is deducted and received by the Government is there anything in any Act of Parliament which compels the Government or the Crown to restore the sum improperly charged?
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I am very glad the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates a reduction of Income Tax under the present Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no; not under this Government."] Be that as it may, I think he will find that, for substantial purposes, it is covered by Sub-section (3). The Clause is careful to say that this anticipated deduction is only justified in so far as it does exceed the charge or deduction which might have been made if the Income Tax had come into force before 6th April. The Inland Revenue has never raised the slightest difficulty in adjusting this matter; it has, as a matter of fact, always done it on the next occasion of paying dividend.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend who would have been able to deal with this point is prevented from doing so by a public engagement, but he will be here shortly. I feel incapable of taking his place on this very technical question. I can only say that if the Bill

  1527
  is only half as clear as the explanation of the learned Solicitor-General there will be no difficulty. I never heard a point more admirably and lucidly explained, for the Solicitor-General carried the House with him, not only as to his meaning, but also as to the substance of the policy he expounded. I Whether the Bill carries out the policy he has expounded I am not in a position to say. I think any hon. Member who suffers under the same educational disabilities as I do will probably experience the same difficulty as I do in regard to feeling that the policy so admirably propounded by the Solicitor-General is the same as that propounded in the Bill. I am ready to take it as a matter of faith, and if my hon. Friend has the same confidence in the exposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should imagine he will not ask the Committee to proceed to a Division. I do not know whether there is any hon. Member present whose intellect is equal to the task of grappling with the various sub-sections of this Clause. If there is, and he can show that the Clause is not in conformity with the policy laid down by the Solicitor-General, that is another matter. I take it that on this subject there are many on both sides of the House in the same unfortunate position as I am, and will be as content as I am to rest my hope upon the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made as to the policy which the Bill does really carry into effect.
  Captain CRAIG: I am sorry to have to pursue this particular point after what the Solicitor-General has said. May I point out that, as a layman, I do not quite follow all the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. After all he has said, I really cannot understand why he objects to accept the definite words which my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth has proposed. Everybody knows the difficulty there is in recovering anything from the Government, no matter what Department it is, whether it is the Customs or the Inland Revenue. My hon. Friend suggested the word "shall" in order to put the onus on the Government of returning what has been found afterwards to be an error or mistake. Although none of us object to the explanation which has been given on behalf of the Government, I am sure it would ease the minds of many hon. Members of this House if the Solicitor-General's interpretation
  1528
  of this Clause or of this particular point was allowed to go forward in the form in which my hon. Friend has framed it. The Amendment says that the amount overcharged in consequence of a reduction in the rate of the Income Tax shall be repaid. I do not suppose there is any other Act where the Income Tax collectors are compelled to repay when a mistake has been found out. The usual machinery in such cases is most awkward for the ordinary citizen. You have to go to one of the agents, perhaps miles away from where you are residing, and employ him. You have to produce all the counterfoils of the dividend warrants and everything connected with your income; and then, after that, there is a considerable amount of expense, and probably you have to employ some lawyer to put the case forward. There is not a man inside or outside this House who does not recognise that in every case the individual citizen is at a great disadvantage. My hon. Friend makes it an absolute and honourable obligation upon the Department, when they find they have made a mistake or when anything has occurred to change the tax, to repay the money, and on that ground I shall support him if he goes to a division.
  Mr. FELL: I entirely agree with the lucid explanation given by the Solicitor-General. It is quite right that the Amendment should come under Sub-Section 3. Would he have any objection to the words of the Amendment being inserted in Sub-Section 3? I think they are a perfectly true statement of what the Solicitor-General says is going to be done.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I should like to have an answer to that question. The learned Solicitor-General tells us the Crown do not intend to stick to this money overpaid. I have not the slightest doubt, if they consulted him, they would not be advised to stick to it; but, unfortunately, the Inland Revenue do not always consult lawyers, and it is just conceivable to imagine circumstances in which they would not consult them. We want to have something in the Act which will enable the subject, who perhaps is not as learned a lawyer as the Solicitor-General, to know be can get back what is overpaid, something which will enable the subject to go to the Inland Revenue and say, "Look here, I have overpaid you; pay me back." The Amendment would only carry out the intention of the Government as expressed through the Solicitor-General. It cannot possibly

  1529
  impose any obligation, upon the Inland Revenue, which the Solicitor-General says ought not to be imposed. It will only make clear what the Solicitor-General says is the intention of the Revenue authorities; and if that is, as I have no doubt it is, a perfectly honest intention, I cannot conceive the remotest idea why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: If there were the remotest ground for supposing that this was an effective Amendment which would produce an effective result, the Government would be prepared to deal with it. But I hope hon. Members will take it from me, on the part of the Department, that no difficulty has ever arisen. I might point out two or three difficulties which would arise if these words were put in, but until somebody can suggest that in this matter the revenue authorities of this country, which is staffed after all by permanent officials, have actually been cheating the taxpayer, I think it is unnecessary.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I only want to make it clear by words in the Act of Parliament what the practice is.
  Captain CRAIG: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accuse me of having suggested that the Department have cheated the taxpayer.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: Certainly not.
  Captain CRAIG: I have heard no suggestion about the Department cheating anybody in the course of this Debate. I only suggested that they rightly looked after their own, and that the onus rests on the subject to recover from the Department. I should be sorry, indeed, to be associated with such strong terms. I had no intention in the remarks I made of suggesting that the Department was likely to cheat in this manner. All I said was that everybody knew, from common knowledge, that all the expenses, onus, and trouble rested on the citizens to recover from the Department, whereas under this Amendment the onus will rest on the Department.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 265.

  Division No. 47.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk, (Bath)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Astor, Waldorf

  Croft, Henry Page

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Doughty, Sir George

  Larmor, Sir J

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Barnston, Harry

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moore, William

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bigland, Alfred

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Bird, Alfred

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Boyton, James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Butcher, John George

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hills, John Waller

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cator, John

  Hobler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Cave, George

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanler, Beville

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Swift, Rigby

  Winterton, Earl

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Sykes, Alan John

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Touche, George Alexander

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Captain Craig and Col. Chaloner.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Walker, Col William Hall

  Spear, John Ward

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Adamson, William

  Falconer, James

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacGhee, Richard

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

  Fenwick, Charle

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Armitage, Robert

  Field, William

  M'Cailum, John M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Baker, Harold, T. (Accrington)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset)

  Furness, Stephen

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Marks, George Croydon

  Barton, William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Beale, William Phipson

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Martin, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Mathias, Richard

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brace, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Munro, Robert

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hayward, Evan

  Needham, Christopher T.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Neilson, Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hinds, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Clough, William

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Grady, James

  Clynes, John R.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Johnson, William

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. Hmts., Stepney)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Keating, Matthew

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dewar, Sir J. A

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Doris, William

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

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

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Leach, Charles

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

  Elverston, Harold

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Radford, George Heynes

  1532

  1533

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ward, w. Dudley (Southampton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Wardle, George J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Waring, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

  Webb, H.

  Richards, Thomas

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Snowden, Philip

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough).

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Summers, James Woolley

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Sutton, John E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  St. Maur, Harold

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

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

  Wadsworth, John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

  Mr. POLLOCKmoved to omit Sub-section (3).
  It may seem perhaps a little remarkable that after the explanation which has been given of this Sub-section by the Solicitor-General, and the lucid explanation of the Leader of the Opposition, I should still desire to move this Amendment. I ask the Committee to pay attention to the exact words of the Clause. It is a Clause which has slipped in. It has an independent bearing of its own. It is not to be read subject to anything at all, and it stands on its own weight, and it says this—
  "Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act."
  The Committee knows well that a mere Resolution of this House is not effective and has not got any legal force or validity, and no sum can be legally withheld by the Treasury or collected by the Treasury by the mere force of a Resolution of this House, and therefore until an Act has been passed there is no legal right to detain any sum from the taxpayers' pocket. Sub-section (3), which is designed for a particular purpose, goes very much beyond the purpose which the Solictor-General has indicated, and introduces a very high Constitutional change. It declares that "Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax shall be deemed to be a legal charge or deduction…" That is not qualified by any words saying that where a sum has been improperly charged or deducted that shall be illegal. What the Sub-clause says is that any charge
  1534
  made before the passing of the Act imposing it shall be a legal charge. It means that although a Resolution of this House has no legal force or validity, and although a Financial Resolution of this House does not take the place of an Act of Parliament, yet under this Sub-clause-any charge or deduction is to be deemed to be a legal charge or deduction.
  There are two periods of time contemplated by this Sub-clause. One is after the old financial year is past and there is a period—an interregnum—while the collection of Income Tax is governed by a Financial Resolution of this House. That is the period before the Finance Act receives the Royal Assent in August. Then you may have a period after the Act has been passed, and when it may be necessary to regularise certain payments made previous to the passing of the Act. I ask the Committee to mark these two periods of time. Under the scheme of the Income Tax Acts there is a clause in the Act of 1890 under which the powers of an Income Tax Act of a previous year are brought forward so that preparations may be made for the purpose of collecting Income Tax when it is imposed by Act of Parliament. Nothing except a Statute can legally impose the tax. Sub-clause (3) is drawn in very wide terms, so that any charge or deduction shall be deemed to be legal. If what is desired by this Sub-clause is to make legal after August and after the Act has been passed what has been done before, that may be a laudable, desirable and necessary purpose. That might be a useful provision, and if there was some limit to the time we might be able to understand the Clause, but what is here

  1535
  stated is that these charges and deductions for which there is no authority and no Act shall be deemed to be legal charges, or deductions which might have been made if the Act imposing the tax had been in force, so that at any time during a period between April and August or between August and the close of the financial year any deduction or charge of Income Tax is to be deemed to be legal although there is not an Act in force at the time. That is going far beyond the needs that the learned Solicitor-General pointed out. I may give a concrete case.
  In the outer Lobby just now an hon. Member suggested that the meaning of this Clause was that if at a certain time a shilling was taken from a person, then however that shilling was taken it should be deemed to have been legally taken from him. That is a somewhat startling proposition. But the proposition of the learned Solicitor-General is this: assume you had no right to take 1s. 2d. at all from the Income Tax payer, and it is ultimately determined that you are to have the 1s. 2d., or be it that you are to recover the shilling only, then so far as you have taken the shilling after a certain period it is to be deemed all right and legal that you should have taken the shilling, although at the time you took it you had no right whatever to take it from the pocket of the Income Tax payer. The financial Secretary to the Treasury did me the honour on the passing of the Second Reading before the House to tell me that this Clause was machinery only. But it is machinery of a very bad kind. It is machinery which makes legal matters which the House has always insisted on keeping in its own hands, namely, the taxation of the people of this country, and it makes it possible for the Treasury by means of this Clause to make any deduction that they please, subject only to this, that at a later stage in the year, when the Act is passed, the sum that has been taken shall not be in excess of the sum which is imposed by the Act. But the terms are so wide and so inapt from the very limited purpose which the learned Solicitor-General says they have been intended for, that I invite the attention of the Committee to this as a great Constitutional change, and a serious change, and unless some alteration is made in the terms of this Clause, and unless these words are cut down either by limit of time or limit of purpose, I submit to the Committee that they should not pass a
  1536
  Clause of this wide nature to make legal what is not legal, and justify deductions which have not been authorised by the Statute. On those grounds I beg to move the omission of Sub-section (3) of this Clause.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point with great clearness, but I would like the Committee to consider whether what is proposed would not really be a disadvantage to the British taxpayer. That is a position which ought to be dealt with by the Committee, not with any kind of an idea of making a point across the floor of the House of Commons. After all an adequate and systematic collection of Income Tax, so long as it is a part of our system of taxation, is of equal interest to all parties whatever their political opinions. Certainly, I should be much surprised if the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) thought it in the interest of the administration of the Income Tax that this Sub-clause should be omitted. Under modern conditions, with a Parliamentary Session beginning in January or February, the Finance Bill does not receive the Royal Assent much before August. I think a Finance Bill for which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was responsible received the Royal Assent before 1st August. Everybody knows that the Income Tax runs from 6th April to 5th April. If you have not some machinery by which this tax might flow steadily in subject of course to adjustments of amount, you are disorganising, not the finance of any particular Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the finance of the country.
  It was not so if you go back to an earlier period. The Income Tax was first proposed by the younger Pitt in 1798, in the month of December, if I remember aright. It passed through at a rate that the modern Chancellor of the Exchequer would envy. The Bill was introduced and read a first time on the 5th, it was read a second time on the 6th, and a third time on 31st December, only two Members voting against it. It received the assent of the Lords on the 8th January of the following year, and the Royal Assent on the next day. The Bill, of course, provided for a thing entirely in the future. But in modern conditions it is really necessary that there should be a collection of the Income Tax continued without interruption arising, because the Finance Act does not receive the Royal

  1537
  Assent until August. What we provide under this Sub-clause is merely this, that if the Income Tax ultimately authorised is less than that which has been collected in the meantime, the balance of the tax unauthorised is illegal, and therefore cannot be retained. That is all in favour of the taxpayer. If the Sub-clause were left out it might in the result possibly be a matter of doubt as to whether the Income Tax had been collected in the ordinary course which had been collected in the month of July or August. If the whole machinery were brought to a standstill it would neither be good for the public service nor the individual taxpayer. If ever the happy day should come when the whole Income Tax is abolished, so that the whole amount of the Income Tax collected would have to be returned, I am sure the Income Taxpayers would be very glad to get it all back.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will not set my memory against that of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the date on which the Budget for which I was responsible passed into law. I am very much surprised to hear that it did not pass until August. My impression is that the duty at that time was levied on the 31st July, and that the Budget for which I was responsible passed in July. In that year there were proposals that Customs Duty should run until 30th June, and next year it passed in June. What the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made plain is why in order to pursue an old practice you require a new sub-clause or why you require, new words in the Statute It has always been the practice to collect the Income Tax on the strength of the Resolution of this House. That Income Tax has been collected in the ordinary course in certain cases long before the Royal Assent has been given to the Finance Act of the year. Of course, any collection made on the strength of the Resolution was subject to the obligation by the Treasury to return the money if the House at a subsequent period reduced the rate of the tax. For instance, if the House passed a Resolution that the tax should be 1s. 2d., and that in Committee stage it was reduced to 1s., the Treasury would have to refund the extra 2d. to the people, from whom there was no lawful authority to take it. That has always been the practice, and, as explained by the Solicitor-General, in order to make that the practice is the whole object of this Sub-clause.
  1538
  I distrust new words intended to make the law what it always has been. We tried in the great Budget of 1909. The learned Solicitor-General's predecessor insisted upon new words which he said were necessary in order that the Courts should not misinterpret the intentions of Parliament, and should not assess licences under a different method. Those words went to the Courts, and the Courts said, since there are new words they must have some new meaning, what that meaning is heaven only knows; but it is our unhappy duty to find a meaning for them. In this very Budget we have to have a Clause to take out those new words in order to restore the old meaning. With that example before us, I think we ought to press the Government further for some reason for finding new words, which do nothing more according to them than carry on the old practice. I think if you put in new words that you do not attach any new meaning, you run the risk that the Courts will import a new meaning, that you have done something which you had no intention of doing. According to the practice of the past these words are not in the least necessary for the protection of the taxpayer. You cannot levy taxes from him for which you have no lawful authority, and if you do levy money, in anticipation, and if Parliament does not give it you would have to refund it. That has always been the law and it does not need these words to make it so. I do not understand for what purpose the Government have put them in.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: No one who objects to this Sub-clause as it stands has any wish whatever to interfere with the adequate and systematic collection of the Income Tax. Really the motives which have led some hon. Members to object to this proposal are entirely different in character from that. We have heard from the Solicitor-General reference to the Younger Pitt and the date at which the Income Tax was for the first time initiated in this country. It was initiated in 1798 as a temporary tax, as a small tax, and as a war tax. Now, it is not a war tax, not a temporary tax, not a small tax, and for that reason, though no one on this side of the House wishes to interfere with its adequate or systematic collection I think the Solicitor-General and everyone else on the other side of the House will realise that the character and permanency of the tax is now on a

  1539
  different basis, and that every conceivable endeavour should be made to prevent any appearance of harshness or arbitrariness on the part of the Inland Revenue who collect it. If one takes this new Subsection as it stands by itself, the Solicitor-General has told us that it will be to the disadvantage of the taxpayer if these words are deleted. As the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire has said, it is arguable that these words are not needed at all. Even on the hypothesis of the Solicitor-General himself, if these words are needed for the protection of the taxpayer, then at least why not so amend the Sub-section as to limit it to the purpose for which he says it exists? Taken by itself, there is no question but that this Sub-section is infinitely more far-reaching in its effect. If it was said that the previous wording of the Section was too complicated, there is no question whatever but that the wording of this Sub-section in itself is too clear. The Solicitor-General made a complicated statement clear in his previous explanation; I am sure he cannot make this perfectly clear Sub-section so complicated that it cannot be understood by being read.
  The effect of the Sub-section is that practically any deduction may be made in the way of Income Tax by the Inland Revenue in anticipation of subsequent legislation. Taken by itself, this Clause is hardly open to any other interpretation at all. We have sometimes been laughed at for holding that the policy of the Government in the future would be to pass a Finance Act declaring that anyone should pay such taxes as might seem convenient to the Inland Revenue at the time. That has been held up to ridicule, but by this Sub-section almost that precise policy could be given statutory enactment. The Income Tax may be levied under this Sub-section without any resolution or statutory authority whatsoever. It is not even necessary that the statutory authority should be given in the same financial year or in the subsequent financial year. The tax can be levied in anticipation of being legitimate, so to speak, per subsequum matrimonium, in any following year whatsoever. It is quite arguable that the Super-tax might have been collected under this Sub-section, and that even if the Budget of 1909 had not been passed it would have been a legal charge under the words here inserted. Should not some Amendment be suggested
  1540
  by the Government if they do not wish the Clause to be altered so as to confine the operation of the Sub-section to the purpose for which the Solicitor-General says it has really been inserted? At present there is no time limit. We are always asked for a time limit in a certain trade. Might we not also ask for a time limit to the possible exactions of a great Government Department, to the demands made upon us by the Board of Inland Revenue? If this Sub-section is to be retained for the purpose of safeguarding the taxpayer, words should be inserted or the present wording altered so as to confine it to its legitimate purpose, and so that it would not enable any charge to be made in anticipation of some sort of legitimation by Statute at any subsequent date whatsoever.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: When the Solicitor-General speaks one becomes so hypnotised by the charm of his style that one gets to believe that one is living in a world altogether better than that by which we are unhappily environed. There is a rude old proverb about getting butter out of a dog's mouth. The Solicitor-General wishes us to believe that so far from expressing the ordinary relations between the taxpayer and the Exchequer, that proverb should be so varied as to express the idea that the Exchequer is full of nothing but the sweetest of all possible reasonableness. If there is one dangerous thing in a Statute more than another it is the presence of words which are superfluous. All lawyers know that in superfluous words there is the danger which always besets the doing of that which is unnecessary. And if there is one form of doing unnecessary things which is more dangerous than another it is doing the unnecessary thing to an insufficient degree, or in an insufficient shape. These words, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire has pointed out, are words which purport, sanction, perpetuate, recognise—and let me add crystalize, and that means make more rigid—the existing practice. Yet they do not express the whole of the existing practice. They express so much of it as tends to save and preserve the rights of the Exchequer. They say nothing of the rights of the subject. They leave entirely to that state of harmoniousness and sweet reasonableness, which is left entirely to the imagination, and will be printed in no Statute, the possibility and chance that the subject

  1541
  will have to get his money back as best he can from the jaws of the creature into which it has fallen.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: May I add one word in view of what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite? It is an error to suppose that the provision now suggested is introduced for the first time. I am informed by the Department—the right hon. Gentleman opposite will know how full they are of information of matters relating to historical fact—that substantially a similar provision existed for many years down to the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885. I find in it a Sub-section which provides that "any charge or deduction of Income Tax.… made in the same year prior to the passing of the Act shall be deemed to have been legally charged." I am informed by the Department that a similar provision to the present existed for a generation before 1885. It is not known by those who instruct me why it came to be dropped out. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman knows—we do not. It must have been omitted by accident. All that we are doing is, as the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, to put into the Statute that which has been most frankly and fairly stated is the practice.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thank the hon and learned Gentleman for his information. I confess I was not aware of what he says, and I am sorry to say that I do not know any more than his advisers for what reason the Sub-section was dropped out. I noticed in the words which he read that they were not exactly the same as these. They were more limited. The point of them was to limit the payment of the tax to the particular year which the Act of that year was subsequently to legalise. I understand the words to mean that there was to be a collection in a particular year which was to be legalised on the Act passed subsequently in the same year. "Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previous to the passing of the Act imposing the tax," the Government may legalise by an Act of two years hence. The subject has no protection. Any charge is legal which the Government may at any time afterwards legalise by an Act, and the Inland Revenue may at any time collect Income Tax at any rate they please, and the Government, under the Sub-section may legalise that collection by the passing of an Act—
  Sir JOHN SIMON: I do not think that is so. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the Clause, though not exactly in the same words, is carefully limited to any charge or deduction made during any Income Tax year—that is, from the 6th of April to the following April—and it is necessary by the language of the Clause, as I read it, that the charge should be made during the Income Tax year, and legalised by the passing of the Act imposing the tax—
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to make the point clear, introduced into his explanation words which are not in the Clause. He says it legalises any charge of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year or previous to the passing of the Act for the year. The words "for the year" do not occur in this Clause—
  Sir JOHN SIMON: What does occur is "imposing the tax," and the tax is a tax made during the year—
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think this arises. You could make a tax for this year and legalise it two years hence. I hesitate, of course, on a question of the construction of words to place my opinion against that of the learned Gentleman. I think the words are open to question, and perhaps other learned Gentlemen may give the House the advantage of their learning on the subject. I put a further point to the Solicitor - General. This Clause, according to the Government, intended for the protection of the taxpayer, authorises the collection of Income Tax not merely in anticipation and the passing of the Act, but without even the passage of a Resolution. Hitherto I think you needed the authority of a Resolution. You at least made your proposal to a Committee on the strength of their approval of a Resolution. You collected the tax in anticipation of the Act, but you did it on a Resolution. This would enable you, I think, to collect the tax without any Resolution at all. That is hardly a measure for the protection of the taxpayer; it may be a convenience to this Government or another, but it is a variation which, I think, we ought not lightly to adopt. I am unable to see why having got on for 25 years without this proposal to the satisfaction of the Government, and more or less equally to the satisfaction of the taxpayer, we should now introduce new words in order that you may pursue an old system.

  1543
  I agree with what has been said that this is a very dangerous thing and when a Committee does that it frustrates its own desire.
  Sir JOHN SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I do not claim to have any superior authority in understanding the plain words of an Act of Parliament. What I should wish to do if the right hon. Gentleman agrees is to suggest that this Amendment be withdrawn, and in view of the comments which have been made we will consider whether we are going further than we intended to go. It is not intended to go further than is fair and constitutional.
  Mr. CAVE: In view of what has been said I do not want to take up this matter controversially. I should like to put two points which I think ought to be considered. This Sub-section contains two branches, one authorises a charge and the other a deduction. As regards the charge I take it to be clear that it enables a tax to be collected though not sanctioned by resolution. That differs from the other Acts which sanction by Statute amounts levied under a Resolution of this House. This Section sanctions a charge not sanctioned either by Bill or Resolution. That point was fully raised by my right hon. Friend. Then there are the words authorising a deduction. See what that means. It may mean the deduction by a banker or a company of a charge not yet sanctioned by Parliament. Supposing an agent says to the taxpayer, "I will not pay your dividend in full because I think the Income Tax this year will amount to 2s. or 2s 6d." He may then make a deduction on that basis. What is the result? The taxpayer has no remedy. He cannot sue because by the time his action comes to a hearing the Statute may have sanctioned the deduction. I think the whole subject ought to be reconsidered.
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I call attention to a point which I think the Solicitor-General and his advisers have apparently overlooked. If I may say so, the reason why that Clause was dropped in the Act of 1885, even if it was continued afterwards, was that they took a certain power which is contained in the Act of 1890 and that is a permanent Clause which is quite sufficient for present working purposes and makes this new Clause unnecessary. What I fear
  1544
  to is Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, which provides:—
  "In order to ensure the collection in due time of any duties of Income Tax which may be granted for any year commencing on the 6th April. All such provisions contained in any Act relating to Income Tax as were in force on the preceding day shall have full force and effect with respect to the duties of Income Tax which may be so granted in the same manner as if the said duties had been actually granted by Act of Parliament, and the said provisions had been applied thereto by the Act."
  This Section was much debated at the time, and was considered by the Law Officers when the Budget had been rejected in another place, and the question was put over and over again in this House as to whether or not, by reason of there being a resolution, the Income Tax could be collected. If I recollect rightly it was determined at that time that there was no such power because the effect of this Section was to keep the machinery for collecting the Income Tax on foot, and it was held and apparently has been held for twenty-one years that that is sufficient in order to maintain the smooth collection of the Income Tax. It was never intended, until this drastic Clause was inserted, that not only should the machinery be kept in motion but also that sums should be deducted, and that those deductions should be held to be legal without either a Financial Resolution or an Act imposing them. Might I respectfully, and with all humility, offer to the learned Solicitor-General the explanation why that Clause has gone, as his permanent advisers tell him it has gone. For twenty-one years a different system has been adopted, and it has not been thought advisable to have a clause so wide as this Clause, on which the Solicitor-General admits there is a question which, I understand, he is going to kindly consider whether he cannot modify in order to carry out the real purpose and at the same time safeguard the liberty of the subject without imposing so serious a burden upon him.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The Solicitor-General has promised, on behalf of the Government, that this matter shall be thoroughly investigated before the Report Stage. I hope that pledge carries with it, as it ought to carry with it, a further implied pledge that the House shall have some opportunity at the Report stage of

  1545
  considering the decision at which, between now and then, the Govern may have arrived, because I am sure he will not expect us to pass from a very substantial point unless we have a prospect of reviewing in the Report stage the decision at which the Government may by that time have arrived. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman some of the issues which I think he will have to consider during that period? He will have to consider whether any words are required in this Bill at all and whether the words of the Act of 1890, which my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) has quoted, are really not adequate for all purposes. He will have to consider in the second place whether the words of Sub-section (3) are not really absurdly wide as they now stand. As I understand Sub-section (3) it will be possible for the Government, without a Resolution of the House at all, to collect Income Tax at the rate of 2s. in the £, because Mr. Pitt established an Income Tax of that amount. The words are:—
  "Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax—"
  As far as I understand that language, that goes back to the very beginning of the Income Tax; and because Mr. Pitt, in a year of great stress, and with extraordinary rapidity—partly due to the difficulties in which the country then found itself and partly to the absence of Mr. Fox and his friends—was able to get through the necessary financial proposals of the year, and because he proposed an Income Tax of 2s. in the £, it seems it will be possible for the Government, without a Resolution of the House of Commons at all, to exact from the taxpayer an Income Tax of that amount. I cannot believe that is the intention of the Government. It certainly seems to follow directly from the phraseology of Subsection (3), and it is truly absurd to say that any charge shall be deemed to be a legal charge because fifty, sixty, or one hundred years ago it was a legal charge passed through this House and through Parliament.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has produced certain precedents which he says really carry out the intention of the Sub-section, and which appeared in Acts twenty or thirty years ago. Does he see any objection, if he wishes to restore the substance of those
  1546
  provisions, to restoring them in the very language which Parliament then passed? We may presume that sections which were in force for many years, and which carry out the present intentions of the Government, were safe sections from the point of view of the taxpayer. It would be a great relief to us to know, if the intention of the Government does not go beyond the intention of the Government of 1885, that they will restore the words of 1885. It may possibly require amendment. I hope the Government will understand if we do not put the House to the trouble of a division on this Sub-section now it is on the distinct understanding that they do not wish to go beyond the Act of 1885, and that we shall have an opportunity on the Report stage to survey the form which the Government meanwhile with their expert advisers will consider in the light of the criticisms which have been passed on it. I do not think that the hon and learned Gentleman who has shown himself so conciliatory will think that my requests go beyond what the critics of the Government have a right to demand.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I think it would be far more satisfactory if the Government would accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend at this stage, reserving to themselves the right to bring up new words on Report. The Attorney-General has met us in a conciliatory manner, and has suggested that the matter should be considered again before Report. There are two ways in which such consideration is made. If it is left to the Government to consider any possible alteration they are much less prone to look thoroughly into the matter than if they consented to the Opposition's Amendment, with a view to subsequently bringing up any amendment of their own. Would it not be wise to leave out the words now?
  Captain CRAIG: Will the learned Attorney-General consider a very important point about reductions of the Income Tax made during the Income Tax year. Suppose in the first place the Income Tax Resolution was for 1s., that then it was altered to 8d. and subsequently to 7d. How could the legality of the 8d. be insisted on? Would it not be possible in framing this Sub-section to make it perfectly clear exactly where we stand so far as legality is concerned. I take it in connection with the 8d. it is provided that any charge for Income Tax made during the Income Tax year previous to the passing of the Act shall

  1547
  be deemed to be a legal charge. But take the case of the people who had been paying 1s. Suppose it was a railway company or some large concern which had to pay their shareholders their dividends, Income Tax deducted on the 1s., and yet when the Act was passed the legal tax was 8d. Would it not be possible to frame such a sub-section as would make it perfectly clear that those who had paid the larger sum would not be in a worse position than those who waited and paid the lower sum. Is there not an invidious distinction by which people who pay Income Tax on the first demand are placed in a less advantageous position than those who keep the payment back and then find the demand reduced?
  12.0 M.
  It appears to me that a premium is immediately given to those who refuse to pay the Income Tax in the meantime, that is to say, before the Act comes into operation. If consideration is given to those who refuse to pay before the provision appears in an Act people will say, "Why should they pay this money, be out of pocket and have the trouble of recovering the twopence, when the people who will not pay the larger sum until the Resolution becomes law have a premium given to them." The Government have been claiming that, in the interregnum, there was full power in them to collect the tax and now in face of this Amendment they are deliberately eating their own words. You cannot expect the country to understand the Clause when the Government put it forward in a Bill and then immediately a few arguments are offered they have to admit that they are wrong, and before Report stage they will consider the matter and put it right. I quite admit that this argument may be a perfectly genuine one between the members of the legal fraternity who are able to interpret the nicities of legal phrases, but to the ordinary lay mind it seems absurd that a Bill is brought forward in the House with a clause of this sort, and after slight criticism by a lawyer Members of the Government have to admit that they are wrong, but before the Report Stage they will make it right.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think my hon. and learned Friend will be quite ready to withdraw the Amendment if it is clearly understood, as I think was indicated by a favourable nod on the part of the Solicitor-General, that we should have an opportunity of discussing this question when the
  1548
  Government are able to put it before us on Report. If that is clearly understood—
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly.
  Mr. BALFOUR: That is understood?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I do not suppose the Government desire to keep this up any longer, especially bearing in mind the promises of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer last autumn of full opportuntities of discussion, and the promise of the Chancellor of the Duchy that we should have full opportunities of moving our new clauses. It is twelve o'clock; we have come to the end of a part of the Bill, and it is a convenient time for the Committee to adjourn.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I am sure the Committee will feel that we ought to make a serious inroad into the Bill to-night. The Government have very earnestly desired throughout the Session, so far as possible in matters affecting the time of the House, to meet the wishes and justifiable opinions of hon. Members opposite. We have honestly endeavoured to carry our business forward without arriving at any of those sharp collisions of opinion which sometimes have led to the expression of feeling. On the Address, on the First Reading of the Parliament Bill, and on Supplementary Estimates, the time which the Government had originally allocated to the discussions of those subjects has been extended in every way, so far as possible, to meet the wishes of all parties; but our progress has not been so rapid as we had anticipated, and much less rapid than we had hoped. There is great pressure upon the House between now and 31st March in regard to financial business, and this very procedure of discussing the old Budget and patching it up is largely due to the punctilious fulfilment by the Government of a pledge which they voluntarily gave when our proceedings in the last Parliament were terminated by the

  1549
  General Election. The Government are very anxious indeed to make substantial progress with this measure to-night. The Debate has been of a most valuable, cool and business-like description, and no one can say the House is not efficient to continue it. We all regret the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, no doubt, is a loss which the Government cannot fully supply, but the Leader of the Opposition has borne witness to the lucid and conciliatory manner in which the measure has been conducted, and on behalf of the Government I must ask the House not to agree to the proposal which is made, I think, without any expectation that it would at this early hour be acceded to, and that we should rely upon the Committee to continue the discussion until a very much larger portion of the Bill, and of the new clauses has been disposed of than we have at present placed to our credit.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that the fact that the discussion so far has been conducted with good temper and without heat is sufficient reason why the House should sit to an abnormally late hour. That condition is very easily disturbed. I am the last person to wish that any heat should be introduced into the discussion, but evidently the fuel is there. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot be moved by anything less than a conflagration, I daresay a conflagration can be provided. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is the last person to desire that that particular method of persuasion should be adopted. May I appeal to his sense of justice, and to the repeated declarations made by himself and by his friends on that bench. The circumstances under which the whole of the discussion is necessary at this time—for it is a discussion which ought to have taken place last Session—are present to everybody's mind. How was that transference from the right Session to the wrong Session recommended by the Government? How was it excused to the House? It was excused to the House by repeated promises on the part of more than one responsible Minister that there would be the fullest opportunity for discussing the whole question in the course of the present Session. The Prime Minister, on one occasion at least, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on two occasions at least, and then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Joseph Pease), recently the head Whip of his
  1550
  party, made this statement on 21st November last year:—
  "We propose, under the new Bill in next Parliament to extend the discussion over the whole range of our taxation system, and it will he permissible next Session for hon. Members to move new clauses, as they usually do—say clauses for the reduction of the Land Duties, or any new clauses of that kind—although we will have no resolution covering new taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1910, col. 226.]
  Of course, I could multiply quotations, but it is sufficient to say that there is no doubt whatever there is an honourable understanding on the part of the Government that we should have full and ample opportunity for discussion on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are now in a very calm and cool temper eminently fitted to discuss the question at what he calls this early hour of the evening. Well, the hour of the evening is a quarter past twelve, and this Government were the people who laid it down that for the adjournment of Debate eleven o'clock was the proper hour. We are now told by the right hon. Gentleman that an early hour in the evening is a quarter past twelve. If this is an early hour in the evening, what is eleven o'clock?
  Of course, everybody knows that the practice introduced by this Government of adjourning at eleven o'clock was with the special approval and by the special desire of some of their supporters who thought that that hour should be the extreme limit of the ordinary Parliamentary sitting. Therefore it is preposterous to describe a quarter-past twelve as an early hour of the evening. It may be an early hour in the eyes of gentlemen who are accustomed to later hours, but not in the eyes of gentlemen of earlier domestic habits, who think that eleven o'clock is the proper time to adjourn. I really want to know how the Government are going to justify the appeal they are now making to us to sit later. Does anybody suggest for a moment that we have not made substantial progress to-night? I confess, after listening to a good deal of the Debate, that I have never heard a Debate on anything so controversial as this Budget conducted in a more conciliatory spirit on both sides of the House, and with less desire to waste the time of the House. We have repeatedly abstained lest we should unduly occupy time, and I think it a very poor return on the part of the Government for the efforts which we have made that they should in face of their repeated pledges tell us that half-past twelve at night is the time to begin the 9th Clause. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and those on his Bench that

  1551
  if they use the power of their authority on this occasion to force through in the early hours of the morning a discussion on this Bill they will stand accused before their own consciences and before all public opinion of having made those repeated pledges last November simply to get over an immediate crisis without the smallest intention of carrying them out. I do not accuse right hon. Gentlemen of that, I do not believe that they were guilty of it. But how can they, in the face of all they said, what the Prime Minister said, and what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, not once, twice or three times, but repeatedly, ask us at this time to begin new subjects, to start a new discussion dealing with complicated draftsmanship and varied problems which these clauses present to us and tell us that that is carrying out the pledge that we should have, in the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, an opportunity of extending the discussion over the whole range of our taxation system? I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman has read the pledges given last November he will not insist upon this House beginning at this hour a further discussion, especially as we have to resume debates in less than twelve hours from this time.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: I venture to press on the attention of the House the statement just now made by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the time already given to the House in connection with the business that we have been transacting. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that we ought to go on through the early hours of the morning because the Government had been generous in the time that they had given to other subjects. This House still remembers that the Government gave us perhaps one more day on the Address, but took away the whole of the private Members' time. If they gave us the opportunity of voicing matters of grave importance, they took to themselves time which in ordinary Sessions would have been of vast importance in raising large public matters. We are told that ample time has been allotted to us for the stages that have been taken of the Parliament Bill. Can anybody say that any Bill of that vast constitutional importance has ever been passed through its First and Second Reading in this House in so few days? If anybody turns back to measures which may be compared to it, he will find that a very large portion of the House's
  1552
  time had been given to this subject; and then he fell back upon the statement that it is necessary on account of the exigencies of the financial year.
  But it is entirely the Government's own doing. There was plenty of time to do the financial business before the end of the financial year if they had not insisted upon bringing in such vast measures as the Parliament Bill in all its stages. It is really the direction of their own business which brings about this pressure that they now venture to exert. So it is that we have the right to put aside such arguments as have been put forward. Nobody can deny that to get through eight or nine Clauses of a Revenue Bill like this in one evening is sufficient work for one night, and its having been done reasonably affords all the more proof to the Government that it is desirable that they should act in a reasonable manner. Seeing that we have been doing the work of this Session in a business-like manner, I do not think that the Government should take a step which may produce another condition of things. Certainly it is not wise at this hour of the night to enter upon such a subject as is opened up by Clause 10, and which, by the evidence, is one that excites the deepest interest, which is not confined in the least to one party, but exists among all parties alike. I think we rightly ask that on such a matter as Clause 10, we ought not to be asked to enter at this hour, but that we should be allowed to go home to-night, and start fresh, on our return, on so important a question, in order that not only ourselves, but that the public and the Press should have an opportunity of knowing what is going on in connection with Clause 10, which is much more important than probably any other portion of the Bill. Therefore I ask the Government to reconsider the position, and give us the time for which we ask.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I point out to the Committee the statement which was made by the Prime Minister on the 16th of February this year, and I think the importance of it will be seen. The Prime Minister said, speaking of the Finance Bill:—
  "In redemption of that pledge we Lave first, of all to introduce, as we shall on Monday, by resolution, or by a series of resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, that which will lay the foundation on which we have to prosecute the Bill through its various stages, and we propose to give for these purpose "six-and-a-half days."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Thursday, 16th Feb., 1911, col. 1253.]

  1553
  There was, as far as I have been able to look through the report of that Debate, no protest by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite against the time which was then proposed to be devoted to this purpose.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: We protested against the whole arrangements for the Bill.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. All I wish to say is that the right hon. Gentleman really must not base an argument on our silence. We do not get up and challenge every statement of the Prime Minister the moment it is made. I think we all protested unanimously against the proposal of the Prime Minister, holding that he had under-estimated the time needed for the Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: We propose to keep to the arrangement. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Laurence Hardy) rather led the Committee to understand that we took up before the close of the financial year other business than finance.
  Mr. L. HARDY: I think the allusion I made was to the Parliament Bill. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman says that that is financial business.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that we were taking other business that we should not take. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Parliament Bill."] We are not taking to the end of this month business other than financial business, and in that financial business we are not taking any business other than that which must be concluded before the end of the financial year. We are not taking any business to the end of the financial year that it is possible to postpone over the end of the financial year. Thus far we go. I think the undertaking of the Prime Minister last February was that the business of the financial year should be concluded, and the Revenue or Finance Bill in the financial year. We are endeavouring to redeem that promise, and we have, in order to do so, postponed the business which we proposed to take, namely, the further stages of the Parliament Bill. I would ask the Committee to say that we have tried to redeem the pledge we gave not merely by giving ample time for discussion, not merely by giving five and a half days during the last Session of Parliament for the discussion of what was called the first part of this Bill,
  1554
  but as well giving ample time to the discussion of financial business and trying to redeem our pledges in concluding the financial business within the financial year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Has the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently considered the pledges that were given last August? It is quite true that there was a pledge that the matter would be dealt with in the financial year, but I think the inference is that that should have restrained the Government from introducing the Parliament Bill and passing it to its Second Beading. What the Government have really done is by a very improper proceeding to make it difficult for them to carry out honourably their pledges. If they are to break their pledge—and break it they are—it is better they should carry this on to the next financial year than discuss important matters in this way. What the Prime Minister said was:—
  "Therefore, with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—all such undertakings being now—I hope that is clearly understood—subject to unforeseen contingencies …"
  What is the unforeseen contingency?
  "With the undertaking, subject to those contingencies, on the part of my right hon. Friend, that he will reintroduce and submit for consideration, with full opportunity of discussion, before the close of the present financial year, the remaining provisions of the Budget which for the moment he is obliged to drop."
  If anybody calls this "full opportunity of discussion" on a new subject, very important confessedly, at this hour in the morning I do not envy such a person's sense of honour. The Government are in a peculiar position in the matter of financial business. They contend that it is solely a matter for the House of Commons. So far as amendments to the financial business go that has always been understood. This is a matter on which the House of Commons alone can judge and alone can discuss. This is therefore the only opportunity on which this matter can be brought into public debate at all.
  Mr. HOBHOUSEwas understood to make an observation.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that I am referring to this particular proposal of the Bill, this Money Bill, which the House of Commons alone can discuss, according to the Government, and that is not to be revised by any possible Second Chamber? I am not sorry that the public should see to what a point of submission the First Chamber sinks under the present Government. I do

  1555
  not care how often the Government exhibit the degradation of their own supporters. It is perfectly clear that this House is the mere instrument in the hands of the Government. If they choose to take anything at one o'clock in the morning they can take it. We all know how valueless is the control of the House of Commons over finance or any other matter, although the Government no doubt pretend to believe in that delusion. We know it is a delusion. Up to now we have thought there was some security in the solemn undertakings of Ministers. The Government are overthrowing this year one of the Constitutional securities—the Second Chamber. Are they going to overthrow at the same time the tradition of trusting the pledged word of Ministers? How much is going to be left to us by these House of Commons men of the ancient customs under which the proceedings of Parliament were conducted? It is very unfortunate that the Home Secretary has been left in charge of the House. He is constitutionally unaccustomed to yield submission to considerations which appeal peculiarly to good taste and good feeling. Our appeal must necessarily be made from this House and from this Government to those who are outside. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? The observations of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not reach me. They are seldom of an enlightening character.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will enlighten the Noble Lord. I was referring to the recent reference to the people at Lanark.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's mind that he thinks the proceedings of to-night ought to have influenced an election which took place yesterday. We are asking for a reasonable opportunity to discuss a financial measure in the House of Commons, and the Government, in spite of their repeated promises, are refusing us that reasonable opportunity. As a partisan I am quite indifferent. In fact, I am pleased, because I am anxious that it should be made clear to all the world what the relations of the Government and the House of Commons are how completely the House is at the mercy of the Government, how completely it is under their orders, how utterly valueless the securities they offer us in the Parliament Bill really are. I am glad to be rid of the silly hypocrisy with which they put us off in Debate here and attempt to gull the
  1556
  electors in the country. But it is necessary that we should make an emphatic protest against their proceedings; they will find that they gain neither time, patience, nor amenity in Debate by treating us in this way.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: If a mere plebeian like myself may dare to follow in the footsteps of a distinguished patrician like the Noble Lord who has just spoken, I would respectfully suggest that the House is getting a little tired of the lectures the Noble Lord is so fond of delivering to this House. The Noble Lord appears to be ready to deliver one of his superior addresses on any subject under the sun. I would suggest to the House, and especially to the friends of the Noble Lord—who seem to admire him on some occasions, and on other occasions are so anxious to drive him out of public life—that as a matter of fact it is absolutely impossible for any man to know half as much as the Noble Lord pretends to know. Why, Sir, the Noble Lord would be ready to lecture Cardinal Newman on the use of the English language, or Darwin on "The Origin of Species," or—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or manners?"] I thought I heard a Noble Lord, one of the triplets in the corner, say something about manners? May I tell him that I do not look up to the Noble Lord as an exemplar of good manners. I think, at any rate, at a quarter to one o'clock in the morning he would be much better occupied if he would address any remarks he has to make on good taste to the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) who sits near him. For the absence of good taste is the most conspicuous feature in the speeches of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord may be a great theologian, I do not know much about that myself, but he certainly does not strike us by the lectures that he is so fond of delivering to us that he is very much of a politician. If I were to describe the character of the Noble Lord as it appears to me I would say that he is a politician in the custody of a cleric. Nature has certainly intended him to be, not the leader of a new Fourth Party, but a pedagogue. If there is one thing I gather clearly from the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite—many, too, on this side of the House—it is that the House is getting thoroughly sick of the posturing of the Noble Lord as an authority upon politics and everything which comes under the purview of this House. I earnestly trust the Government will not be intimidated by the three Noble Lords

  1557
  in the corner, but that they will stick to their guns and insist in carrying out the programme they laid before the House this afternoon.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: This Motion to report Progress seems to allow considerable latitude. I do not feel I am at all called upon to reply to the remarks of the bon. Gentleman who has just sat dawn. The only observation which occurs to me in that connection is that he has given us one more lesson, if such ware needed, of the kind of Debate which would take place in a Parliament in College Green.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: We will have no lords there.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: And no doubt it is because of the experience of the hon. Member in regard to the unwillingness of this House to listen to trumpery eloquence of that character that induces him and his colleagues to be so keen to transfer their energies to another sphere. Coming back to the Motion before the House to report Progress, it certainly seems to me rather ridiculous for the Home Secretary to say at this hour of the morning that he wishes to make a substantial inroad into this Bill after we have already passed eight clauses. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the nature of the Clauses which we have already passed. First we have gone through the Clauses dealing with land values. Anybody who has heard the discussions we have had during this Session, about land values, and knows the amount of controversy that is excited by the land taxes, must realise that in getting through three Clauses dealing with land values so rapidly the Government should congratulate themselves very much indeed. Then there have been the whole of the Excise Clauses equally important, and also two Clauses dealing with Income Tax. If that is not a substantial inroad into the Bill, I am sure I do not know what the Home Secretary calls a substantial inroad. The Home Secretary did not say how far he proposes to go, and we can form no idea of what he contemplates as substantial. He tried to make out we ought to be very grateful because the time for discussing various matters this Session has been already extended. What does that amount to? The time for Supplementary Estimates has been extended.
  What did the Government propose for Supplementary Estimates to start with?
  1558
  Was it one day or what? We had Supplementary estimates, although the amounts were comparatively small, raising questions of the very greatest importance and interest which ought to be discussed in this House, and which are as yet by no means finished. The Home Secretary talked about the first reading of the Parliament Bill. There was an extension, I believe, of one day from what was originally proposed. Only four days were allowed for the Second Reading, and when the Closure was moved several hon. Members had not been able to deliver speeches during any of these four days. Hon. Friends of mine have told me that they spent the best part of those four days rising in their places endeavouring in vain to catch the Speaker's eye, and if I am not largely mistaken there are many hon. Members opposite who gave themselves a good deal of exercise in the same direction without any result. That is what we are asked to be grateful for. We are asked to be grateful for being allowed four days' discussion on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, the most important measure which has ever been introduced into the House. That is the Government's idea of giving ample time for discussion.
  The Home Secretary talks about "catching up the Budget," and carrying the financial business of the year. It is a well-known fact that it is not in the least necessary from a financial point of view to pass this Bill before the end of the financial year, and if the Government had wished to carry out their pledge, and pass this Bill before the end of the financial year, they should not have introduced the Parliament Bill before their financial business. Why did they introduce the Parliament Bill when they had all the pressure of this financial business? They did it because they knew they would be able to get more votes by bringing in the Parliament Bill at the beginning of the Session, and at all events by so doing they would be able to keep together the heterogeneous horde on their side—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—whereas if they gave free discussion on these financial measures they know they would be in danger of losing a large number of votes which they gained at the last election. Apart from all the rhetoric indulged in about these taxes, if the people of the country really knew the effect of those taxes upon a great many people we should not find the Members sitting opposite but the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters would be occupying

  1559
  the benches opposite. There are hundreds and thousands of people in this country who have not the faintest idea of the incidence of these taxes, because they have been gulled. The Government know very well that the more these taxes are discussed the more the people will find how they have been deceived by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary. What are we coming to?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: God knows.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: We shall have to consider almost immediately, when the Stamp Clause has been disposed of, the great question of the relations between the local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer. There is no subject more thorny than this.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Yes, there is the monkey tree.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: There is no subject more thorny than the question of the money which ought to go to the local authorities. Then there is another question we shall come to on Clause 10. There is no doubt in the world the Government have absolutely gone back on a distinct pledge, free of all conditions, to give half of the Land Duties to the local authorities. Considering we are coming to all these important matters, considering, as the Home Secretary must recognise, that the line and temper of the Debate has been entirely altered by his refusal to accept this Motion, I must say that we are entering upon a discussion that cannot in any way be fruitful. We are entering upon the discussion of important matters when the House is no longer in a mood to discuss them impartially, fairly, and properly; and, moreover, we are being asked to bring up this important question with regard to the local authorities at a time when, as the Home Secretary knows very well, it will be impossible for there to be an adequate report of it in any of the papers to-morrow morning.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am not going to make a second speech on the lines of that I have already made, but I really must make an appeal. We are coming to a most important question of Parliamentary procedure. Let me first deal with what I take to be the view of the Government. They say, whether their previous course has been right or wrong, they are now compelled to adopt these drastic measures in
  1560
  order to get through the necessary financial business before the 31st of March. That does not, in my opinion, justify their course; but let us leave the past alone for the moment. I am sure they could, if they felt the necessity of doing so, make some rearrangement of their business which would enable them to carry out what I shall show in a moment are real pledges. They might, for example, postpone the Debate on Monday, though I am the last person to wish it postponed, for three weeks—less than three weeks—until we had finished our financial business. There is nothing in most of the Budget—in nine-tenths of the Budget—which makes it necessary to pass it before the end of the financial year. So far as I am aware—I speak not as an expert in this matter—there is only one clause and the schedule which it is desirable to pass.
  It would also be very inconvenient not to pass the provision about the Sinking Fund before the end of the financial year, but the greater part of the matters we have been discussing to-night, and which remain to be discussed, and all the new clauses can be discussed every bit as well after the financial year as they can tonight, and, though I have had no opportunity of consulting my friends, I have no doubt they will agree with me that so far as the clauses or the provisions of the Bill have to be passed before 31st March, the Government will have no trouble at all if they make arrangements for postponing that part which need not be passed before 31st March. They would then be able to get the things which ought to be passed before 31st March without any undue Parliamentary dilemma whatever. That is to say, I think they could carry out the pledge which we conceive to be given. Let me return to the pledge in no controversial spirit. I have had to do "with the Leading of the House, or the Opposition, for more years than I care to think, and in all those years one of the methods by which Parliamentary business between sharply contrasted bodies of opinion has been able to be carried on is that when pledges are given they are carried out. I would really, not in any controversial spirit, appeal to all old Members of this House to support me when I say that if this House is to be in the future what it has been in the past that system must be continued, and I would ask any new Members of the House to believe me when I say that has been the settled practice of all parties and of all Governments ever since the time to which my Parliamentary

  1561
  memory goes back. I have read one statement from a Cabinet Minister, let me read a statement from the Prime Minister. I do think, when I have read it, and when I have reminded the Government of the terms on which that pledge was given, they will feel it is their bounden duty to do everything they possibly can to see that the promise given by the Prime Minister is carried out.
  This is what the Prime Minister said on 21st November, 1910—
  "For the purpose of bringing the present Session to a close we think it will be found for the general convenience of this House and the country that we should confine our discussion to that part of the Finance Bill which proposes the two new taxes … at the same time "—
  And these are the words I am earnestly asking every Member of the House to consider:—
  "Repeating the undertaking given, both by myself and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last Friday, that if we are in a position to control the business of the new Parliament we shall consider it a binding obligation on us to give the new House of Commons full opportunity with every latitude to discuss and consider these other matters before the close of the financial year."
  I wish to add no embittering comment to the recital of these words. I appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, although they have not had such long experience of Parliamentary life as I have, still know what Parliamentary life is and I ask whether there was ever a pledge given by the Leader of the House in terms more clear or more explicit, or in terms which more rigidly bound those who made them to carry out to the letter everything that they promised. Do they really think that that promise is carried out when on the very first night of the Committee, and after having passed eight Clauses, after having worked strenuously and honourably all these hours to carry those eight clauses we are forced in the small hours of the morning to deal in Committee with the new subjects contained in the remainder of the Bill? I do not believe that any men of ordinary common sense or with ordinary feelings of honour will think I have exaggerated in the statement I have made, nor will they think I am putting in an unfair claim when I say that we look to the Government, who have the majority at their back, to carry out the pledge that their leader gave.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Whatever may be felt about the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to us it will certainly be conceded on all sides that he has put his appeal, or his attack,
  1562
  whichever word properly characterises his speech, in a very much less offensive manner than has been indulged in by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. But when all deductions have been made on that score the right hon. Gentleman's charge is a very serious one. He has charged the Government with deliberately breaking their pledge with regard to the course which we are now pursuing. I do-not think the Committee will find that there is any justification for such a gross accusation and attack. The circumstances under which the Budget last year was cut in half are well known to the House. They are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
  1.0 A.M.
  If it were any part of my wish or intention to-night to go into controversial matters, I should have no difficulty in indicating the original cause of the financial embarrassments which led us to divide the Budget of last year and led us to convulse our Parliamentary business by two General Elections. That is not my purpose. The Committee will remember that when the House assembled in November of last year to discuss the Budget, the period at our disposal even then was very restricted before Christmas was reached, and in no circumstances could the discussion of this Budget, even if undertaken last year, have extended to anything approaching the length which a controversial Budget is usually contended in in ordinary circumstances. Then it was decided that Parliament should be dissolved, and the Prime Minister promised that the opportunity should be given for the discussion of these further matters connected with the Budget in the new Parliament. At the very beginning of the Session the Prime Minister explained very carefully what he meant by that. He said first of all last year that he expected the conclusion of this Budget to be reached by March 31st, and that was the pledge that he gave. In the second place, at the beginning of this Session, he said he proposed to allocate six and a half days to the discussion of finance. Although that might not then have seemed satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and may not now seem satisfactory to them, and although we do not attempt to say that they committed themselves to the opinion that the proposal was a satisfactory one, at any rate it is the proposal we made openly and frankly from this Bench, which we have never departed from, which we

  1563
  are not going to depart from, and which we shall make good to the very best of our ability.
  I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been justified in making so very harsh an accusation against us as he has. It would not be possible for us to postpone the discussion that is to take place on Monday, as he has suggested. We promised definitely to those who have pressed for the opportunity of discussing the expenditure on the combined Services that they should have an opportunity of doing so before Mr. Speaker left the Chair on Army Estimates. We could not possibly accept that suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. If we were further to divide the Budget and take part now and leave the rest trailing over into the Budget of next year, we should never get our Parliamentary finance and the Parliamentary discussion of our finance out of the confusion into which it has been involved, as everybody knows through no fault of our own—at any rate, through no fault of anyone in this House. I can only say that while we very much regret that difference of opinion should arise between the two sides of the House as to the amount of time given to these matters, we are quite unable to depart in any way from the statement that it has been my duty to make earlier in the evening, and must ask the House, no doubt by some exertion and sacrifice, to press on with the discussion of this measure. If, of course, we could be satisfied that we should reach the end of this Bill at a reasonable hour, it would not be necessary for us to press the discussion of the new clauses upon the Committee at the present time, but in the absence of any desire to meet us in that direction we can only say, with every earnest wish not to cause ill-feeling or rise of temperature, that we must press steadfastly along one path.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must say that the concluding suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman for a fresh arrangement between the two sides of the House
  came singularly badly from him at the moment when he was persisting in a flagrant breach of an agreement already made. When the Prime Minister in November made the statement which has been quoted to-day and gave it as an assurance, as a definite promise, of the ample opportunity that we should have to discuss this Budget, my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil), with whose speeches the right hon. Gentleman finds fault, interrupted him to say "There is no statutory security for that … "The Prime Minister said" I do not know what the Noble Lord means. "The Noble Lord said," There is nothing to be put in the Bill that will give security for that matter. "Said the Prime Minister," There is no necessity." I am afraid the Prime Minister was mistaken and that a pledge that is not statutory is not worth much under present conditions. Never have I known in the nineteen years that I have been in the House so clear a promise of ample time so flagrantly broken by the colleagues of the Minister who made it. If I regret, as I do deeply regret, the cause of the absence of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I regret their absence still more because I am certain that if the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had their words before them they would not think of pursuing a course which is absolutely unparalleled in the treatment of a contentious Budget, and is absolutely incompatible with the pledges which they gave. It is a great misfortune for us that we have to discuss the Budget in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the misfortune is doubled when the Leadership of the House is taken in these circumstances by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 155.

  Division No. 48.]

  AYES.

  [1.10 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Adamson, William

  Barton, W.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Brace, William

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brady, P. J.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Armitage, R.

  Bentham, G. J

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Chancellor, H. G.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Johnson, W.

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, G. H.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Law, Hugh A.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Leach, Charles

  Robinson, Sydney

  Dawes, J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Dewar, Sir j A.

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, T.

  Rowlands, James

  Doris, W.

  Lynch, A. A.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Dufty, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elverston, H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Essex, Richard Walter

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Falconer, J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mathias, Richard

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Sutton, John E.

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Gill, A. H.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Toulmin, George

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morrell, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Goldstone, Frank

  Munro, R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Greig, Colonel H. W.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Verney, Sir Henry

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gulland, John W

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wardle, George J.

  Hackett, J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Webb, H.

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Grady, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Malley, William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hinds, John

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mastar of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Beech, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Butcher, J. G.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Astor, Waldorf

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cassel, Felix

  Baird, J. L.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cator, John

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

  Bird, A.

  Cave, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Boyton, J.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

  Barnston, Harry

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  1566

  1567

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kerry, Earl of

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Capt E. A.

  Royds, Edmund

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Croft, H. P.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Spear, John Ward

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Mackinder, H. I.

  Stanier, Seville

  Fleming, Valentine

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Staveley-Hull, Henry

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Moore, William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Swift, Rigby

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Goldman, C. S

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Gordon, J.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Touche, George Alexander

  Grant, J. A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Greene, W. R.

  Nield, Herbert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gretton, John

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Winterton, Earl

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripen)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hohler, G. Fitzroy

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hops, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Younger, George

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir. Acland-Hood and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 228.

  Division No. 49.]

  AYES.

  [1.17 a.m.

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kerry, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Croft, H. P.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Larmer, Sir J.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Barnston, Harry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Lewisham, viscount

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Benn, Hon. Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Moore, William

  Bird, Alfred

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Boyton, James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Gordon, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Grant, J. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Nield, Herbert

  Butcher, J. G

  Hall, D B. (Isle of Wight)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cator, John

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Cave, George

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Lard Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Pollock, Srnest Murray

  Stanier, Beville

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

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Winterton, Earl

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wood, Hon. E F. L. (Ripon)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Swift, Rigby

  Worthington-Evans, L

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Younger, George

  Royds, Edmund

  Touche, George Alexander

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Flavin, Michael J.

  Masterman, C. F. G

  Adamson, William

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Mathias, Richard

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Meagher, Michael

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbarton)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molloy, Michael

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Barton, William

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beale, William Phipson

  Gulland, John William

  Worrell, Philip

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, Robert

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hackett, John

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Neilson, Francis

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brace, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Brunner, John F. L

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Clough, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Clynes, John R.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Johnson, William

  Pointer, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Joyce, Michael

  Radford, George Heynes

  Crumley, Patrick

  Keating, Matthew

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dawes, J. A.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wills, Cricklade)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh A.

  Richards, Thomas

  Doris, William

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duffy, William J.

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elverston, H.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robinson, Sydney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mac Ghee, Richard

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Falconer, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rowlands, James

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  St. Maur, Harold

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Ferens, Thomas R.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Field, William

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

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace E.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  1570

  1571

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Shortt, Edward

  Toulmin, George

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wardle, George J.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Sutton, John E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Webb, H.

PART IV.—STAMPS.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Exemption in certain cases of leases from increased Stamp Duty so far as consideration consists of a capital sum.)
  Where the consideration, or any part of the consideration, for any lease or tack consists of any money, stock, or security (other than rent) the amount or value of which does not exceed five hundred pounds, and the instrument contains a statement certifying that the transaction thereby effected does not form part of a larger transaction or of a series of transactions in respect of which the amount or value or the aggregate amount or value of the consideration other than rent exceeds five hundred pounds, Section 75 of the principal Act shall not apply to the duty chargeable in respect of the consideration, or part thereof, which so consists of any money, stock, or security other than rent, but duty shall be charged in respect thereof as if that Act had not passed:
  Provided that this Section shall not apply in any case where part of the consideration for any lease or tack consists of rent, and that rent exceeds the sum of fifteen pounds a year.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I desire to move an Amendment which will, I think, remove a redundancy that appears to exist in the first line of the Clause. The Committee will see the words of the Clause are: "Where the consideration, or any part of the consideration, for any lease or tack, etc." I do not know what the object is of putting in the words "the consideration or any part of the consideration." Surely if any part of the consideration is to enable this exemption to take place, the whole consideration must also enable the exemption to take place. It is an a fortiori argument that if any partial consideration enables the exemption to take place, so must the whole. The words appear to me to be a redundancy. I beg to move to leave out the words "the consideration, or."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite clear these words must stand part of the Clause. Otherwise it might mean any part of the consideration, and not the whole consideration.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely my Noble Friend is right in saying that these words are redundant. If the consideration does not exceed £500, part of the consideration cannot exceed £500. That is clear. If the whole does not exceed £500, part of it will not exceed £500. The word you should have in is "consideration," and the words you should leave out are "any part of the consideration." I do not know whether there is any necessity for having the two sets of words, but on the face of it either one or the other should go out.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I point out that this matter deals not only with the premium but with rent as well?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption, but what has that got to do with it? He says the Clause deals with rent. We shall come to rent later. The part we are dealing with refers to a consideration other than rent. Therefore we are not now dealing with rent. We are dealing with the consideration, and the whole of the consideration other than rent is not to exceed £500. If the whole consideration other than rent is referred to, is it not the part other than rent which cannot exceed £500? I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has not seen my point.
  Earl WINTERTON: Apparently the Treasury is so muddled that for the first time in history we are asked to believe that the part exceeds the whole. Why the right hon. Gentleman got up and said this referred to rent I really do not know. It arises perhaps from the fatal habit of considering these questions at half-past one o'clock in the morning. Apparently he considers that where rent is concerned the part may be greater than the whole. That,

  1573
  no doubt, is quite in accord with the views of some of his colleagues on the subject. These words are entirely redundant, and the word "consideration" alone should stand. I have not the least hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the elision. The whole object of the Government has been to muddle and confuse the public as much as possible so that they could screw them up to their necks in taxation.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think it is perfectly clear that if we use the word "consideration" we may ask why do you want the words "or any part thereof"? The Noble Lord has pointed out that the part is not greater than the whole. I think the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment rendered a very good service in bringing this point forward, but he did not make it quite clear. I think it would be better to use the word "consideration" and leave out the words "or any part" of the consideration. Therefore, in order to facilitate business—I am sure hon. Members opposite are most anxious to do that, though it is very difficult to consider these complex problems at half-past one o'clock in the morning—yet it would facilitate business, as far as that is possible under present conditions, and I ask whether it would not be for the general convenience if the Noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment and allow me to move to leave out the words "or any part."
  Dr. HILLIER: We are going from one obscurity to another. We began early in the evening, after a long debate, by correcting a printer's error and previous to this discussion we had a motion to report Progress but before that we had time after time to try to convince the Government that one of the Sections of the Clause required further consideration, and finally they assented to that. We are now up against a further obscurity in the words "or any part of the consideration." I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that if we are to have not merely printer's errors corrected but plain English inserted in the Clauses of this Bill we should facilitate that purpose by leaving out the words "or any part of the consideration." On these grounds I support the Amendment.
  Mr. BUTCHER: It is hard to say at his hour of the morning exactly what is the right Amendment to make. I quite agree it would be better to try to make
  1574
  sense of it and instead of leaving out the word "consideration" leave out the words "or any part of the consideration," because, if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give me his attention for a moment, it is quite obvious that if the consideration is less than £500, part of it would be less than that. I believe that ought to be quite clear.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment which is before the Committee, and not to a proposed alternative.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I do not know whether or not it is the general desire that we should try to make sense of this, but if it is I was trying to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the meaning of the Clause as it stands is really obscure. It is quite obvious that you must make some alteration. The hon. Members from Ireland who are interrupting I know dislike this Budget, and would like it to be as nonsensical as they can make it; but we are here to try to make sense of it. I do not think that is an easy task. It is due to some hysterical draftsmanship or something of that kind. What was the meaning of the explanation given from the Treasury Bench? It was that only rent was referred to. But if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the words of the Clause he will see that rent is specially left out. The "further consideration other than rent does not exceed £500." I understood him to have said that part of the consideration might have been rent. It is quite evident that is not so. It is clear we ought to amend the Clause, but the difficulty is to decide upon the exact way to do so.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: What is really intended by the words of the Clause has, I think, excited the attention of Members on this side of the House and also of the Front Bench opposite. Suppose there were four or more men joined on a lease and each received £499 19s. 11d. It is quite clear that each of them would have a part of the consideration and it seems to me that if we leave the Clause alone it would have the effect of exempting them from Stamp Duty because the consideration of each would be less than £500. If that is not the intention, which I very much doubt, it is the effect of the Clause as it stands. If ten people each received £499 19s. 11d. there would be no duty to pay with regard to that part of a consideration. Will some of the Gentlemen

  1575
  who are in charge of the Bill tell us what they do mean? In that case we might withdraw the Amendment because the Clause as it stands would be a highly prejudicial proceeding to the Treasury.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I must press for an answer from one of the Law Officers on the point put by my hon. Friend behind me. Those who followed the Budget discussions of 1909 know that he has had a very wide experience and has a penetrating judgment which he brought to bear upon this proposition, and the construction of the words of the Clauses. If he is right the Government is making a most important concession which we on this side would be very reluctant to stop. I was a little surprised to hear sounds of approval from the other side when my hon. Friend suggested that might be the effect of the Bill. One hon. Member opposite said, "So much the better." Why is he so anxious now that people should escape the taxes which he was so anxious to impose upon them a year ago? Perhaps he has paid a visit to his constituents in the meantime, and has come back with some difficulties in his mind, and finds that those taxes are not quite so popular as he thought they were when he first voted for them. That is possible, but in any case we are grateful to him for the assistance he will doubtless render in his efforts to alleviate their effect upon the taxpayer. I want an answer from someone in authority on what seems to me a legal point, and I must press the Law Officers to say whether or not the hon. Member behind me is right or not in his construction of the words.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I am not quite persuaded that the arguments of my hon. Friends justify me in withdrawing this Amendment, for I am not persuaded that the plan they suggest would be the wiser course. It does not seem to me that if you leave out only "any part of the consideration," you will be restricting the exemption which would otherwise be secured. That is not my object. I want the exemption to be as wide as possible, and I think it would be wide if the words I propose were left out than if the words proposed by my hon. Friends were left out. On this matter I should value the opinion of the learned Attorney-General. If you leave in the words "consideration, or" and take out "any part of the consideration,"
  1576
  it might be interpreted that the whole consideration must be money, stock or securities consisting of £500, and therefore that although a part of the consideration might be money, stock or securities of this kind, yet it would not be subject to this exemption, because it might be interpreted that only when the whole consideration consisted of money, stock or security did exemption become due. On the other hand, if you leave out the words that I propose to leave in, "any part of the consideration," then it necessarily is the case that the whole consideration, being money, stock or security not exceeding £500, must also give the exemption. I am sorry to differ from my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who suggested that I should withdraw the Amendment, but I really think mine is the better one of the two. With all respect I hope I have convinced them I am right on that point, subject to what I hear from the Attorney-General.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Really one or two sentences will, I think, put the matter quite clearly to the Committee, and I feel sure that the Committee will not desire that further time should be taken up with this Amendment. Everybody does not carry the words of various Acts of Parliament in their minds. In point of fact these words are taken verbatim out of the Stamp-Act of 1891, passed by a Government not of our party. It is very necessary that you should use the same words as far as you can to deal with the same subject in various Stamp Acts. The words are in the Schedule: "Where the consideration or any part of the consideration, "and it ends" consists of any money, stock, or security." Those are exactly the same words. There you are dealing with exactly the same kind of thing that we are dealing with here. The words are the same and must be the same. I will answer the question put to me by saying that I do not agree with the construction put on the words by the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford).
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether the words that he has read out, which are identical with the words here, may not have a very different effect if the following words are different? The words which follow here, "the value of which does not exceed £500," apply not only to the consideration or any part of the consideration. Therefore, apparently, you might have a consideration of a million, but some part of

  1577
  it might be less than £500. That is what these words would mean here. It seems very dangerous to take words out of an Act which might be followed by quite different words, and apply them to a new Act. It seems to me quite clear—"where the consideration or any part of the consideration," "the amount or value of which does not exceed £500." Surely that is in plain English, where any part of the consideration does not exceed £500 the exemption follows. You might divide a consideration into as many parts as you like. The words here appear to me to be absolutely meaningless. Really, I think that either the one Amendment or the other should be adopted. It would then be clear what was meant.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I feel that the Amendment which my Noble Friend has moved is of far larger scope than the one proposed by the hon. Member above the Gangway. For those reasons I sincerely hope the Noble Lord will not withdraw it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for the courtesy with which he replied. But, really, I think the matter is not quite as simple as it appeared to him. He looks at the Act from which he quotes. That is a taxing Act. He looks at this section; it is a section in relief of the taxpayer. That in itself has a material effect on the bearing of the words.
  In the Stamp Act from which he quoted the words that "where the consideration or any part of the consideration consists of money, stock, or security," If there there shall be so much charged; but I in the words now under consideration, "where the consideration or any part of the consideration" is under a certain amount, there there shall be relief. I There is not at all the same effect in using the same words. In the one case it is the object of the Statute to impose a stamp where the consideration or any part of the consideration consisted of any money, stock, or security. That is intended to cover every sort of case. Yes, but it is admittedly not intended to cover every sort of case where you repeat the words here. I am not at all certain that I do not rather differ from my Noble Friend on this subject. I think he is coming to the assistance of the Government to stop a I gap in their Bill. I am rather inclined to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman who was delighted to find the hole so large. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined to say that the Government had better have the words they want, and that they will not get the money they expect.
  Question put, "That the words proposed I to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 50.]

  AYES.

  [1.40 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Furness, Stephen

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Glanville, H. J.

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Armitage, R.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemoutn)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Greig, Col. James William

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

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

  Barry, Redmond John

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hackett, J.

  Barton, William

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Beale, W. P

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

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

  Bentham, G J.

  Dillon, John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Doris, W.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brady, P. J.

  Elverston, H.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hinds, John

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Falconer, James

  Holt, Richard Durnlng

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Farreil, James Patrick

  Home, C. S. (Ieswich)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Ffrench, Peter

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Field, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Johnson, W.

  Clough, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  Keating, M.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Dowd, John

  Shortt, Edward

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Grady, James

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Malley, William

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Law, Hugh A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Leach, Charles

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summers, James Wooley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Sutton, John E

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  MacGhee, Richard

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Verney, Sir Harry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Curdy, C. A.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Primrose, Hon Neil James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Waring, Waller

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Webb, H.

  Mssterman, C. F. G.

  Redmond, William Arthur (Tyrone, F.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Mathias, Richard

  Rendall, Atheistan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, Thomas

  Whyte, Alexander F.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Molloy, M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Worrell, Philip

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Munro, R.

  Rowlands, James

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Needham, Christopher T

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

  NOES.

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Archer-Slice, Major M.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

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

  Croft, H. P.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Barnston, H.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Moore, William

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Morrison-Bell. Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Bird, A.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Boyton, J.

  Gordon, J.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Grant, J. A.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Greene, W. R.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ormsby-Gore, Hen. William

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Cator, John

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cave, George

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Clay, Captain H. Spender

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  1580

  1581

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Smith, Hanold (Warrington)

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

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Pryce-Jones. Col. E.

  Stanier, Seville

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Winterton, Earl

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Swift, Rigby

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

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

  Royds, Edmund

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Younger, George

  Salter, Arthur Claven

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Viscount Helmsley And Viscount Castiereagh.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  2.0 A.M.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I desire to move after the word "tack" ["for any lease or tack"] to insert the words "or assignment of a lease or tack." This is a very short point and I put it to those who are in charge of the Bill that if they really intend to give small leaseholders some abatement in respect of their Stamp Duty that abatement ought to be consistently carried out not only in regard to the lease or tack itself, but to any assignment of it. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there are hundreds and thousands of eases every year in which small houses in connection with which the tenancy is for a very short lease, and of course in regard—
  [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley) in the Chair.]
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. Does not my Amendment—"agreement for leases"—come before that. It is after the word "tack."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am willing to give way to my hon. Friend. As the Chairman calls upon me to continue, I would point out that the cases we are now considering are cases of small properties for a considerably small rent or consideration. When the original agreement is entered into, if I understand the meaning of the Clause aright, the idea is to give a distinct abatement of one-half. I was pointing out that if the Government desire to be consistent, and really to give bonâ-fide relief to the people who inhabit these houses, and are in the habit of taking leases of them, or short tenancies, then I suggest that they should carry the abatement a step farther. It very frequently happens that when these leases are made, especially where they are building leases, you have an assignment
  1582
  made to the person who is going to occupy them. The assignment in that case is to the working man. We have a large number of these cases in the neighbourhood of Liverpool. The original stamp on the lease matters very little on the original abatement, but it is an important thing that the working man who is going to inhabit the lease after it is built should have exemption. The whole idea of the exemption is to try and benefit these people. You do not really do so unless you include not merely the original lease or tack but any assignment or tack. It is on these grounds that I have proposed to insert after the word "tack" "or assignment of a lease or tack."
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is in fact, I think, covered by the operation of the principal Act. An assignment operates by means of conveyance. A conveyance is secured in the case of properties under £500 by the operation of the principal Act and therefore the point the hon. Gentleman makes is already covered, and it would be unnecessary to add the words proposed. If it was done by lease then, of course, lease is covered by the proposal we shall come to in a moment.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that there is in the original Act abatement up to £500 in the case of consignments and in the case of any conveyance. What I am trying to point out is that we have got here an altogether different case. We have the case of a mixed consideration. The only part of the transaction provided for in the Clause as it stands is that there is to be a substantial abatement in regard to the original lease. I want that carried still further. It is no answer to the contention that the original Stamp Duty is rather smaller under certain circumstances. What we want is that if an abatement is to be given in the case of the small leasehold property that abatement ought to be

  1583
  exchanged to its changed hands. I venture still to press my point, I do not think the answer we have had is at all satisfactory.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 222.

  Division No. 51.]

  AYES.

  [2.10 a.m.

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Astor, Waldorf

  Forster, Henry William

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, James Augustus

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Rolleston, Sir John

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Spear, John Ward

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanier, Seville

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. G F. (Preston)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Butcher, John George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cator, John

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cave, George

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

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm., W.)

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Moore, William

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, George

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nield, Herbert

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Watson Rutherford and Lord Winterton.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brace, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Adamson, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Alien, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Armitage, Robert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Delany, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

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

  Barry, Redmond John

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Dillon, John

  Barton, William

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Doris, William

  Beale, William Phipson

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duffy, William J.

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. Geo.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Elverston, Harold

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Falconer, James

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacGhee, Richard

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Laren, H. (Leicester, Bosworth)

  Rowlands, James

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  St. Maur, Harold

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Simuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mathias, Richard

  Scan Ian, Thomas

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Shortt, Edward

  Hackett, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, Robert

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Summers, James Wooley

  Hayward, Evan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sutton, John E.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, George

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wardle, George J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whyte, A. F.

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

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

  Leach, Charles

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That in respect of the words of the Clause to the end thereof the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  Question put, "That in respect of the words of the Clause down to the end of the Clause the Chair be empowered to select the Amendments to be proposed."
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH (seated and wearing his hat): On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Motion you have just put is not one which we are entitled to discuss?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly not.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 52.]

  AYES.

  [2.16 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Barton, W.

  Brady, J. P.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beale, W. P.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Adamson, William

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. Geo.)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

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

  Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Armitage, R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bowerman, C W.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Brace, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Clough, William

  Johnson, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Keating, M.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Richards, Thomas

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dillon, John

  Leach, Charles

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Doris, W.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, Sydney

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lundon, T.

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lynch, A. A.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Elverston, H.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Switt

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Falconer, J.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

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

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Shortt, Edward

  Ferens, T. R.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mason, Davit M. (Coventry)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Field, William

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Mathias, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Summers, James Woolley

  Gill, A. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sutton, John E.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Grieg, Colonel J. W.

  Munro, R.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Ure, Rt. Hen. Alexander

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Neilson, Francis

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Walters, John Tudor

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, P.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Haslaw, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Waring, Walter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Grady, James

  Webb, H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Malley, William.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Helme, Narval Watson

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hinds, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  NOES.

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

  Cator, John

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bennett-Goldney. Francis

  Cave, George

  Astor, Waldorf

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Baird, J. L.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

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

  Bird, A.

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Boyton, J.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Barnston, H.

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

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

  Butcher, J. G.

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cassel, Felix

  Croft, H. P.

  1588

  1589

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Royds, Edmund

  Doughty, Sir George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Moore, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stanier, Beville

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Gordon, J.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Swift, Rigby

  Greene, W. R.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Gretton, John

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

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

  Hillier, Dr. A P.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Hohler, G. F.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Winterton, Earl

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Younger, George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Forster.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. Hints. Mile End)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which I propose to take is that of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope) to leave out the word "fifteen" ["rent exceeds the sum of fifteen pounds"] and to insert the words "twenty-five."
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I make an appeal to you, Sir. I understand that several hon. Members have handed in Amendments to leave out the words from the "pounds" ["does not exceed five hundred pounds"] the "pounds" ["rent exceeds five hundred pounds."] I venture to submit that the matter is one of great importance. If our construction of the words is right, it will nullify very largely the value of the section as a whole, and I think will nullify the case which the Government intend to meet. May we not have a discussion upon these Amendments?
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: May I appeal to you on another point? Somerset House at present is blocked with 100,000 deeds which cannot be dealt with owing to the Stamp Duties. I put down a form of Clause which would make that point quite clear. I think that is one matter which ought to be discussed.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have considered all the Amendments, and my decision under the powers given to me is that
  1590
  the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield is the one I shall accept.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to a point of Order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will listen to the right hon. Gentleman on the point of Order.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask whether the Amendments I specially referred to will deal with the depriving of builders of liberty to develop an estate?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have considered all the Amendments before me, including this particular Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield is the one I shall allow to be moved.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to ask, on a point of Order, Sir, whether you hold that you have no power to accept more than one of the Amendments?
  Mr. BUTCHER: Are you not entitled to ask for an explanation from anyone who has an Amendment down which he thinks is important? Perhaps you will allow me to say two or three words on my Amendment.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite true I have that power, and if I require it I

  1591
  will exercise it. If I thought fit I would call upon hon. Members for that purpose. It is to be done if the Chairman thinks fit.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Am I not entitled to ask, as a matter of courtesy, whether the Amendment which I have down is not an Amendment which deserves discussion?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have decided against it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved to leave out the word "fifteen" ["exceeds the sum of fifteen"] and to substitute "twenty-five." I cannot understand why the Government make this limit of fifteen. This Clause, as I understand it, deals with the question where there is a composite consideration given for the lease or tack, part of the consideration being a premium in cash and part of it being in rent. Of course under this you might have a capital consideration of £200 in premium and £15 a year in rent, or you might have £400 in premium and £5 a year in rent. Now under the Clause as drawn by the Government if you have a large rent and a small premium the transaction would be unfairly penalised. If, on the other hand, you have a large premium and a rent of under £15 that transaction will escape a great part of the Stamp Duty. I cannot understand why the Government have drawn a distinction where the total value of the premium and the rent combined is not more than £500. It seems to me immaterial from their point of view how it is split between the premium and the rent. Therefore I would suggest that so long as the total value of the composite consideration does not exceed £500 my proposal shall hold good. In many cases of a lease of this kind it is inconvenient for the lessee to pay a high premium. For example, he might be very willing to pay, say, £50 down and £20 a year in Tent rather than pay some £100 in premium with lesser rent after. I do not see why the Government should encourage one class of transaction at the expense of another. I therefore wish to substitute £25 for £15, because £25 represents in round figures the value of a £500 transaction. I think that would be a much fairer limit to take than £15, but of course, if the Government say it is too high we might agree on £22 10s., with a premium equivalent to make up the total consideration to £500.
  Mr. CAVE: May I say a word in support of the Amendment. It is a point of importance. The Committee know, I think, how this Clause arose. The Act of last year exempted conveyances for a sum not exceeding £500 from double duty, but there was no corresponding exemption for leases. I had quite a number of communications from small clerks and people of that kind who were taking small houses at a premium. In answer to questions the Government undertook to meet the point. So far as the first part of this Clause goes they are meeting it, but the proviso needs consideration. The Government, I suppose, say that the exemption was for £500 purchases and must not apply to valuable leases—leases of houses at a heavy rent, although the actual premium is a small one. But I venture to think they have put the limit too low. The principal people who want this relief are people who take houses not at £15 but at £25 or more, often at £30. For myself, I should prefer the higher limit of £30 to that of £25. At all events, I think we are perfectly reasonable in asking for the £25. That will cover a large number of houses in the suburbs of London and country towns which are taken by clerks and others. I believe the whole system of increasing the Stamp Duty last year was a mistake, because it interferes with the transfer of land instead of making it more easy.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think there are three reasons why this Amendment ought to be adopted. In the first place, the £25 is the identical equivalent in rent of the £500 limit under which abatement is to be given in all other cases. The second reason is that in the original Act itself, I find £25 is the only limit. I think, however, there is a more important reason, and that is that in Lancashire almost every skilled artisan lives in a house that is let at £19 19s. a year. The reason for letting at that figure is that it enables them to compound for the rates, and there are thousands of houses built exactly to fit that particular rental. If we enlarge this limit up to £25 the effect will be that whenever houses of that class are dealt with there will be no exemption from the Stamp Duty.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite correct that the object of this Clause is to extend the benefit to those who have small property—in respect of houses for which there is only a small rent to provide the same exemption that is granted under Section 73

  1593
  of the principal Act, which includes conveyances where the consideration does not exceed £500. But obviously there must be some limitation on the rental. Otherwise you would have this exemption applying, for example, in respect of houses in Grosvenor Square. Consequently we have been obliged to put in some words of limitation. We are not strictly wedded to the particular limitation which we have introduced into this section. It was thought that it was sufficient, but I freely admit all that was said in regard to the £19 19s., and the opportunity of compounding the rates, and so many houses are held by the artisan classes in Lancashire at that rate, and what we are desirous of doing is extending the benefit of this exemption to artisans. Consequently I shall be quite willing, if the Committee agree to this, to go a great deal further than was intended, and to extend the limit from £15 to £20. If the hon. Member will accept that, it is going a long way because there is very little room for a premium with a rental of £20, and he himself said he was willing to accept £22 10s. I think that if we say £20, that goes as far as can properly be asked. If you take it at twenty years' purchase it will leave very little room for a premium. If the Committee will accept that figure, and insert £20 instead of the £25, I shall on behalf of the Government accept it. I agree with the observations made on the other side of the Committee, and I am in favour of this Amendment, the whole object of which was to arrive at a figure which was a right figure, bearing in mind what it was we intended to do in this Bill.
  Mr. BUTCHER: If I understand the Attorney-General aright, he wants to assimilate the practice as to exemptions in the case of leases to that already brought into the Finance Act last year with regard to freeholds. In other words, where the consideration for the payment of a freehold is £500 there is an exemption, and he wants to assimilate that practice to the case of leaseholds, and that where a man buys a leasehold house at £500 he should not pay a double stamp. Am I right in that? If that be correct, the £20 is too little, for in this small class of property the expense of the collection of rent and so forth is so much that you do not get more than fifteen years' purchase of rent. With a rent of £30 you get about £300 and no more, and if you allow the purchase price of £500 you will have to put in £25.
  1594
  I hope the Attorney-General appreciates my point. Fifteen years' purchase is the utmost you can get for this class of property, and if you want to allow £500 as the purchase price, then the exemption must be made more than £20. You ought to make it £30. I think this is a matter on which we can get some support from Ireland. It is really an Irish question. I see the Irish Members getting exceedingly uneasy over this, because they know full well that there is no part of this Budget which is more loathed and detested in Ireland than the Stamp Duty and the portions affecting land, because there are in. Ireland 200,000 or 300,000 small owners of land who have been very hard hit, and will be in the future, when they come to know about it. It has been kept from them up till now. I know what a very awkward position Irish Members are in here. They were forced to vote for this Budget last year. I appeal to my countrymen from Ireland. Here is a chance for them. They will not turn out the Government—at least I do not think so. At any rate they might risk it, and I ask them to support this appeal on our part for the benefit of those poor men whose interests up to now they have neglected. They can support it at no risk to themselves and at no injury to the Government. This exempts persons who pay a few shillings a week up to £25 a year. I say that this double Stamp Duty imposed upon leases and conveyances by the Act of last year might be all right for the people who pay £500 or £1,000 or more in rent, and who buy houses in Park Lane or Grosvenor Square, but for small men living in houses of £25 and £30 a year, and these poor men in Ireland, I say that this small reasonable exemption might be given.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think this is a very valuable sample of the usefulness of discussing Amendments of this kind. It would not be in order for me to make any comment on what the Committee has decided in regard to what is known as the kangaroo guillotine. There might have been, and we know there were, other amendments which the Government would have accepted, and which would have improved the Bill, but the Attorney-General has not seen them.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I saw the Amendments.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Did you consult the Chairman?
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to go into the question of how the Attorney-General saw them. I think it is very improper that he should have done so.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow this discussion to continue. I must ask the Noble Lord to address himself to the Amendment.
  Earl WINTERTON: To the best of my ability, I am endeavouring to do so. The Attorney-General, by way of interjection, I understood to say that he had seen the Amendments. I say it occurred to me that it was improper for him to do so.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I ask your ruling on a point of Order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think this is a matter to be discussed. I have used my discretion as ordered to do by the Standing Orders, and that matter was completed.
  Earl WINTERTON: I should not have referred to the matter at all but for the Attorney-General's interruption.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: May I ask you, Sir, whether I am in order in seeing the Amendments which are handed in for discussion during the Debate in this Committee and whether there is anything improper in my doing so?
  Mr. REMNANT: Selecting them.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not a matter of order. Anyone from any quarter of the House is entitled to come and ask which are the Amendments which have been handed in.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: The hon. Member for the Holborn Division suggested that the Attorney-General selected them. I suggest he is out of order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not gather that. If that had been done it would have been a reflection on the Chair.
  Earl WINTERTON: I never used the words "selected them" at all.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order. I distinctly heard the Noble Lord— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order! order! Will hon. Members allow the hon. Member to put his point of order?
  Mr. MONEY: I distinctly heard the Noble Lord charge the Attorney-General with having consulted the Chair.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Earl WINTERTON: I only wish to say that I would be the last to accuse the Attorney-General of any improper conduct in the sense he took it. If I said anything that seemed to attack him personally, I regret it. The whole question only shows the unhappy state of muddle the House and the Government Bench gets into in discussing this matter at three o'clock in the morning. I think the Amendment the Government have in principle accepted is one of those instances where the much abused and tyrannised private Member shows how he can influence the Government. If the Government had their way, they would prevent any private Member from saying anything. The Government go on the assumption that their Finance Bill is so well drafted that there cannot possibly be any fault in it, and that therefore the presence of private Members on either side of the House is entirely superfluous. I consider that this Amendment the Government have decided to accept in principle is a valuable illustration of the use of private Members. I hope its acceptance will induce the Home Secretary, who is still leading the House, but who I do not see on the Treasury Bench, not to pursue in the Kangaroo Closure.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I thank the Attorney-General, and will act on his suggestion. When the word "fifteen" has been struck out I will move to insert the word "twenty-five."
  Question, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That twenty-five be there inserted."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I move "That the word 'twenty' be inserted."
  Question put, "That the word 'twenty' be there inserted."
  Mr. CAVE: I do not think twenty is sufficient. It is really a serious matter. The Amendment proposed to be inserted will only protect a certain class of artisans. It will not really protect the class strongly represented in my own division and in other divisions in the country—that is the small clerk, who is very often more hard up than the well-to-do artisan. I think he should have a certain amount of consideration in this matter

  1597
  from the Government. The rental that kind of man often pays is just round about £25. I think £25 is really the right figure we should have. So far as I am concerned I do not assent to the Amendment.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I should like to support the proposal the hon. Gentleman who sits behind me has made. I do not think £20 is adequate. I do not know the spirit in which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given us £20—whether it is that it is three o'clock in the morning, or whether it is that he came down to the House this afternoon with the avowed intention of giving us £20. Has he thought out the Question? I should like to have an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Attorney-General told us he was not wedded to this particular form of limitation. In the view of the Government some limitation is necessary. I want to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the composite form of limitation this Clause now contains. First the consideration is not to be more than £500, and the rent is not to be more than £15 or £20. But that really makes a limitation to cover a house of the value of £700, because the consideration of £500 and the rent of £15 or £20 makes the house at any rate worth another £200, so that the freehold value of that house will be at least £700. The Government are prepared to exempt that class of house. Does it matter to the Government whether it is more in rent and less in consideration, or more in consideration and less in rent. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman before he definitely commits himself to this insufficient amount of £20 to reconsider the Clause.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I remove a misapprehension from the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman. May I assure him that bad as the outlook is for this country it is not so bad as to ensure that for £500 he will secure a house in Grosvenor Square for a premium of £500 or at a rental of £20. He is taking a too optimistic view of the matter.
  3.0 A.M.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I hope the learned Attorney-General will not think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth if I put him one question. Some of us think that the limit of £20 is high enough. £25 has
  1598
  been suggested. I understand the learned Attorney-General does not feel able to agree to £25 because of the extra cost to the Treasury. It would help the Committee very much if he could tell us what is the extra cost involved in the concession of £20 as against £25, and what would be the extra cost of the concession of £25. These are obviously very material points. I assume the extra cost must have been worked out, and that the Attorney-General has the figures. Otherwise he would not have been able to make any concession at all.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to support the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) in pressing this Amendment on the learned Attorney-General, and maintaining the exemption at £25. As has been pointed out, the Attorney-General intends to grant the exemption in favour of those persons, be they artisans or any other class—occupiers, owners or purchasers of small houses who are concerned in the very limited transaction which is involved in this proviso. The limit of £20 he accepts because of the very cogent reasons given by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Mr. W. Rutherford), but still more is there good ground for pressing the £25, because of the other class of small clerks and others who occupy these houses. If the amount involved is a small one could not the Attorney-General enlarge his sympathy and make sure that these persons are not prevented from enjoying the privileges of the proviso, merely to recover some small sum for the Treasury. On the other hand the indulgence thus given to a very large class would be a very valuable privilege.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: I was very much struck by the argument of my hon. Friend (Mr. Worthington-Evans) who pointed out that this was a composite consideration. That being the case I think the Attorney-General need not consider so carefully the amount of loss involved to the Exchequer if he adopted the advice of reducing pro tanto the amount of the consideration paid and increased the rental. The Attorney-General made use of the word "premium." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, he would not have called it by that euphemistic title. His word for it was "fine," and "blackmail" was the title he gave outside the House to this business transaction. The Government might adhere to that here if they like it so much outside. If the Attorney-General reduced the amount of the fine

  1599
  or blackmail and increased the amount of the rent, the Exchequer would not suffer in the least, and at the same time an exemption would be given where it is much needed. The Attorney-General might have adopted the same course now with greater effect which the Solicitor-General adopted on another Clause earlier in the evening. The other concession which the Solicitor-General promised to make on Report might well have been made at the moment, and this concession might have been postponed until the Report Stage, because the Clause might very well be
  remodelled altogether. We would not so much object to the fine or blackmail being lower if the rent was increased.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I ask if the Attorney-General is in a position to give an answer to the, question I put as to the cost?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am not able to say.
  Question put, "That the word 'twenty-five' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 152.

  Division No. 53.]

  AYES.

  [3.8 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Adamson, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gill, A. H.

  Mason, David M (Coventry)

  Armitage, R.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mathias, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Barton, William

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bentham, G. J.

  Gulland, John W.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hackett, J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, R.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Brace, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Neilson, Francis

  Brady, J. P.

  Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durhon)

  O'Dowd, John

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Grady, James

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Hinds, John

  O'Malley, William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clough, William

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hudson, Waiter

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hughes, S. L

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Johnson, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Delany, William

  Keating, M.

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

  Dillon, John

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Doris, W.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Duffy, William J.

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

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

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Elverston, H.

  Leach, Charles

  Richards, Thomas

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Falconer, J.

  Lundon, T.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ferens, T. R.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Rowlands, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Webb, H.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Shortt, Edward

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs-, Clitheroe)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wardle, George J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Benn.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Waring, Walter

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baird, J. L.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, J.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Grant, J. A.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, W. R

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Barnston, H.

  Gretton, John

  Rolleston, Sir John

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

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bird, A.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Spear, John Ward

  Boyton, J.

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Stanier, Beville

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Swift, Rigby

  Butcher, J. G.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cator, John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

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

  Mackinder, H J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Moore, William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Croft, H. P.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Cave and Mr. Pollock.

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Pease, Hebert Pike (Darlington)

  Mr. CHURCHILLclaimed "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I rise to a point of Order. [Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the House will allow the Noble Lord to put his point.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I desire to ask you whether you have accepted the Closure or not. I understand that the Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Question, which is 'that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated and wearing his hat): I did not catch that you put the Question, "That the Question be now put." I understood that the Question put was, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." You have not, so far as I have heard, put the Question, "That the Question be now put."
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: May I again explain that the Question is, "That the Question be now put," that Question being "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am afraid I have not made my point clear. Before you put the Question, "That the
  Clause stand part of the Bill, you must put the Question, "That the Question be now put."
  Several HON. MEMBERS: That is the Question.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Am I right in supposing that the Home Secretary moved, "That the Question be now put"? If so, we did not understand that.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Question, 'That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES.

  [3.13 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Field, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacGhee, Richard

  Adamson, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

  Furness, Stephen W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Armitage, R.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

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

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Glanville, H. J.

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Barton, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Beale, William Phipson

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

  Mathias, Richard

  Bentham, George Jackson

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Gulland, John W.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, J.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

  Mooney, John J.

  Brace, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Munro, R.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Neilson, Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hinds, John

  O'Grady, James

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Malley, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Illingworth Percy H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Craig, Herbert James (Tynemouth)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Johnson, William

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Dillon, John

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Doris, William

  Keating, M.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Elverston, Harold

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Waring, Walter

  Robinson, Sidney

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Webb, H.

  Rowlands, James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  St. Maur (Harold)

  Summers, James Woolley

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Sutton, John E.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Williams, P (Middlesurough)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Toulmin, George

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Shortt, Edward

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Walters, John Tudor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Benn.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Wardle, George J.

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, J. L.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, I.

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

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, J. A.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Barlow, Montogue (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter, Edward

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hen. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavel)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bird, A.

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hohler, G. F.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burgoyne, A. H

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Butcher, John George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cator, John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Halt

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Moore, William

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord Balcarres and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, the Chairman declared the Ayes had it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I propose now to make another appeal to the Government based on a more recent statement of the Prime Minister—a statement made across the floor of the House at 4 o'clock. I asked the Prime Minister in the first place whether he thought of getting the Bill through to-night. He scouted the idea of any such policy, but went on to explain

  1607
  that if the House sat late this evening it was not to be anything in the nature of an all-night sitting or a prolonged sitting. I am not going to discuss the matter, I am only going to state that the Prime Minister distinctly gave us to understand that he did not contemplate that course and I call upon the Government to carry out the pledge that he gave. "I move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I was present to-day in the House when the Prime Minister answered the right hon. Gentleman after question time on this subject and it is perfectly true that the Prime Minister then was quite clear that we were not to get the Bill—by which he meant the Bill and the new clauses—to-night. The Government could not expect and did not intend to ask the House to endeavour to pass the Bill and the new clauses to-night. The Prime Minister hoped that it would not be necessary that we should sit very late. We have all hoped so too. But the Government have made no change whatever in the plan of time in which they have been working. They have not only made no change, between 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon and the moment we have now reached, but they have made no change in the proposals which we have put before Parliament since the beginning of the Session. We stated at the very beginning of the Session that we would allocate our time to last year's Budget six-and-a-half days. Six-and-a-half days we will give. No less on any account; no more if we can avoid it. I very much regret indeed that hon. Gentlemen opposite should find that course disagreeable to them and should take it as an injustice. But if they would study the conditions of Parliamentary business they will see that nothing but absolute necessity—unless our business is to get into a tangle and this Budget is to hang over until next year and tread upon the toes of the next Budget, and unless great interests, great purposes which we have in hand are to be prejudiced—that we should use every exertion and make every sacrifice to get this Revenue Bill within the period which we originally fixed and which we frankly and plainly announced to the House weeks ago. Really hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to allow their natural feelings of partisanship to carry them beyond the limits of Parliamentary comfort. There is good reason—
  Lord HUGH CECIL: There is no good reason for breaking a Parliamentary undertaking. [Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Noble Lord to wait his opportunity.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am so much accustomed to the controversial methods of the Noble Lord who deals always in taunts and in insults—[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would invite hon. Members on both sides and at the bar to allow a proper discussion of the Motion.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I say I am quite sufficiently acquainted—[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope hon. Members will be good enough to allow the Chair to control the Debate—it cannot be done without the consent of both sides—and permit the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We on this side allowed the right hon. Gentleman—
  Earl WINTERTON: He did not insult you.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is nothing unparliamentary in the language which I used. If there was the Noble Lord would be the first person to call attention to it. I was saying that the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), who always deals in insults—[Interruption.]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would repeat my request to the House to allow the discussion to proceed and I would appeal to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members who take part in the discussion to devote themselves entirely to the business question whether the Committee should report progress or not. It is not to the credit of the House that taunts should be flung across the House, and I would call upon the Noble Lord to wait his turn to reply to the arguments.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall strictly respect your wishes, Sir. I do not desire to make any reply to the accusations which the Noble Lord interjected into my remarks that we had broken our promise. I was making no reply to that, but I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will realise it was a remark to which a reply was fully justified. I wish to say this on the merits of the policy which we are now pursuing, and which we resolved to

  1609
  pursue if this Bill had been discussed in the ordinary course before Christmas—[Opposition cries of "Why was it not discussed"]. Really hon. Gentlemen are doing themselves no credit by these proceedings. If this Bill had been discussed in the ordinary course before Christmas, I think that three full weeks of Parliamentary time would have been considered quite a fair allowance for it, having regard to the exceptional circumstances of last year. We gave five days in the last Parliament and six-and-a-half days in this—an equivalent of three full weeks of Parliamentary time.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This Bill was never introduced.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: But what is this Bill? [Opposition cries of "What is it?"] It is a Bill of concessions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is not as to the nature of the Bill. [Interruption.] Hon. Members do not make it easy for any hon. Member to speak to the Question. I hope hon. Members will assist the Chair.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like nothing better than to be able to accede to the demands which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition that we should now report progress and terminate our labours now. But, having regard to the great mass of new clauses which have been put down, and which raise again the whole of the controversies of the 1909 Budget, it is imperative that we should make substantial progress in our task unless we are to sacrifice and prejudice the interests of the main measures of this Session. If we did that we should be failing absolutely in our duty. It is with the greatest regret of causing irritation or anger to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I must ask the House to address itself for a longer period to the discussion of this Bill in order that we may at any rate get to the end of the Bill before we separate.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Allow me to ask one question. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the interpretation I and my friends put upon the statement of the Prime Minister, made at four o'clock, that he did not contemplate a sitting which was to extend to this time?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister could not have foreseen the resistance with which our measure has been met.
  1610
  The Government have certainly never diverged in the least from their intention to dispose of this measure within the limits of the time we have given.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. He says, he would, or the Leader of the Government would have given this House three weeks in which to discuss this measure bad it come on last autumn. How many days does he consider amount to three weeks' Parliamentary time. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot get through the business in decent time before the 31st March, why on earth should he not be able to give us next Monday for this measure. From what we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman [Interruption].
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I wish hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. I do think the Committee would do well to leave matters of order to the Chair. So long as I am to be in this position I shall do my best, wherever disorderly interruptions come from, to restrain them.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: It has no effect on one side of the House. [Cries of "Name."]
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Chair. If hon. Members would address the Chair, which is the custom and rule of the House, Members would conduce to the better conduct of business.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: My first words on rising were to address you personally. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if business has got into a tangle it has nothing to do with the party on this side of the House. The whole responsibility lies with the leaders of that side of the House and with the Government Bench. If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the time that has been taken for Finance Bills in past years, he will find in the first place that there has never been any closure since last year on measures of this kind. Last year there may have been something to be said for it because in the previous year this House had passed the Finance Bill. This year there is no justification for such a course. The amount of time allotted to this Bill is grossly inadequate in comparison with the time taken for Finance Bills in previous years when they were non-controversial. We cannot understand why the right hon.

  1611
  Gentleman should not give us the time allotted to the joint debate on matters of Army and Navy expenditure.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I explained why in my speech.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The right hon. Gentleman gave a reason which did not appeal to anyone on this side of the House. All I could understand was that he had given a promise to some Members of his own side of the House. I do not know whether he attaches the value to a promise given to his own side which he does not appear to attach to a promise given to this side, but if he wished to deal fairly by the House as a whole, he would settle matters with his own Friends and pursue the obligations that had been made by the Prime Minister to the Opposition. There is no reason why he should not give his own Friends opportunity to discuss that subject ad nauseam afterwards. There is no need to do it before the 31st of March. We could have that extra day for discussing clauses of great complexity, which cannot be discussed properly at this hour of the morning. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman once again. I hardly think he himself has been the cause of that cool and collected spirit which he suggested earlier in the evening was the reason why the discussion should be continued to this late hour.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It is very difficult at this hour of the night to discuss a Motion of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman I think scarcely appreciates the accusation made against him and the Government. The intentions of the Prime Minister are not of the least matter. What does matter is what he said. He said he did not contemplate a late sitting. It is in accordance with the immemorial traditions of this House that a pledge given by the Leader of one party to the other is not broken. No one can maintain that this—it is now nearly four o'clock—is not an unduly late sitting. It is not my business to consider whether Government business is in a difficult position or not. The most ordinary obligation of morality and honour requires that the promise should be kept. It is open to a Government as to any other person to break their pledged word, but what is not open to them is to escape the imputation of dishonour which attaches to promise-breaking. Such a proceeding, if it involved pecuniary matters,
  1612
  would lead them to prison. Such a proceeding, if done in the ordinary course of private life and intercourse, would drive them from the society of gentlemen.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Whitley, whether, if the Noble Lord pursues this line of argument, a reply will be permitted?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was listening to the Noble Lord, and I was on the point of rising to ask him to address himself particularly to the Question, in the same manner as I have done other speakers.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The only purpose of my argument is to show we ought to report progress because the Government have promised that we should. As far as the Home Secretary's desire to reply is concerned I do not in the least complain of any reply he would endeavour to make. I do not in the least complain of attacks, nor do I desire to be spared them. The point at present is whether the Government are not bound in honour to consent to this Motion. I warn them they will put themselves in a very grave position if they refuse. I think it is a grave position to depart from the traditions of this House. Beyond all doubt such a thing has never happened in Parliamentary experience that an assurance given by the Leader of the House across the floor of the House has been broken.
  4.0 A.M.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI can give a very much more important reason than the promise of the Prime Minister why this Clause should be postponed. Personally I do not attach the slightest importance to the promise of the Prime Minister, and I do not think much of either the honour or dishonour of it. The reason I would give goes to the merits of the case. The next clause is that extremely important clause which takes away from the municipalities the half of the Land Taxes which had been promised to them. I submit that this point, at all events should be discussed at a reasonable hour and under reasonable conditions. You yourself, Mr. Whitley, will remember that when the Finance Act was passed that particular point as to whether the local authorities should be deprived of the benefit of the taxation of site values was discussed at very great length, and occupied a great deal of time and attention, and eventually the Government, in order to try

  1613
  to meet the municipalities in some way, put in this particular Clause, which is now sought to be reversed and repealed. This is therefore a proper time and stage to report progress, and to ask leave to sit again in order that we may come fresh at an appropriate hour to what is, after all, the main point of the whole Bill. It would not be fair to the Government or the municipalities to go further with the Bill, and to get involved in this Clause when we could not possibly do anything like justice to it.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite now that we are at so important a Clause in the Bill to meet our-claim. It is a matter on which there is a great difference of opinion on both sides of the House. Members on that side of the House take as strong a view as we do on the taking away of the Land Taxes from the local authorities. Is it fair to ask us to discuss that question at four o'clock in the morning? Should we not take into consideration the great difference of opinion and also the great interest taken in that question by the local authorities all over the country? It is most unjust to ask us to pass this important measure at such a time in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the time was given to another Bill, but I ask was it intended last November, when the promise was made, that the Government would take away this share of the local authorities in these taxes? This is a most contentious part of the Bill, and it is only fair it should be postponed. What reason is given for pressing it on? It is said it is important to get this Bill and other Bills through before the 31st March. I venture to say there is no necessity whatever for that. The Budget last year was not through before the end of April. What is the reason for getting this Bill through before the end of March. The only reason is that the right hon. Gentleman wants to proceed with the Parliament Bill, and in order that that measure may be rushed the flimsy excuse is put forward that there is not enough time to get through the financial business. If he would devote the whole of the time between now and the 31st March to finance, there would be plenty of time to get through the whole of the financial business and also give us time to consider this measure. It is neither fair to us nor to the constituencies, nor to Members on that
  1614
  side of the House to ask us to go on with this subject at this hour.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to say a few words in support of this Motion, and to endeavour to persuade the Government to see the error of their ways. Feelings have been running high both on the other side of the House and on this side, but I think the time has now come when the Government might listen to the appeal we now make to them. We got on very well for part of the evening until a certain moment. That moment was when the Home Secretary took charge. I would like to remind the hon. Gentleman that this is his first endeavour to lead the House of Commons. I cannot congratulate him on his conciliatory methods. I do not think this is an auspicious beginning or that it speaks well for what may take place in the future. What has been his first proceeding this evening? To throw over the Prime Minister—his own leader, who this afternoon pledged himself to this House that he would not ask us to sit unduly late. I cannot understand why the Government are in this great hurry. Surely there is plenty of time. They have already taken away private Member's time up to Easter and I have not the slightest doubt that after Easter they will take away all private Member's time again. Only a year ago, as an hon. Friend of mine has just said, the Government did not consider that finance was a matter of such vital importance as they appear to do this evening. When the Government began this Debate I do not think they ever for a moment expected they would get nine clauses, but they got them and we are now come to the tenth clause, the most important clause of the whole lot. If the Prime Minister had been present I have not the slightest doubt that in view of the vast importance of the subject which the Home Secretary is asking us to debate he would have allowed us a little relief. After all, feelings have run high, but I should like to appeal to the Home Secretary now on behalf of his own unfortunate supporters on the Front Bench. There is the Attorney-General. I do not know what has become of the Solicitor-General. He has made the best fight of the whole of the Government on the Front Bench, and I am quite sure that we ought to congratulate him on his fight. He has gone to bed; he has left the Attorney-General alone entirely. I think I see also the Financial-Secretary.

  1615
  I am sure he is quite ready to retire if the Home Secretary will allow him to do so. We are going to have plenty of all-night sittings later on. When you get your Parliament Bill into Committee there will be night after night.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Deputy-Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed the hon. Member a good deal of latitude already.
  Mr. STANLEY WILSON: I thought the reasons I was bringing forward were very good why we should now report Progress and go home on this particular evening in view of the sittings in the future. If you rule me out of order on that point I will not continue. Now I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far to-night he really intends to go. I do not think he has any idea. As far as he can possibly get, I suppose. I will ask him definitely, does he intend to finish the Bill to-night? I should like a definite answer, because in view of the importance of this Clause 10 I think we ought to know at once. It is a subject of vital importance to every local authority in the country. I will guarantee that every Member in this
  House, or practically every Member, has received letters from some* local authority in his Constituency asking them to see that this Clause is properly debated in this House. They are new proposals such as the Government has not contemplated before. My hon. Friend reminds me that there are 300 Members who have already gone to bed, and many of those would have wished to have spoken on an important Clause like this. I protest that the Government have no right to take such a vital Clause on such a vital matter in the middle of the night or in the early hours of the morning. This Clause cannot be got through under four or five hours Debate unless it is done by means of the most stringent closure. I should like to appeal again. Hon. Members do not want to sit up late, except the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme, who has come down dressed suitably for the occasion. I am quite sure that with the exception of that hon. Gentleman, all hon. Gentlemen, if they speak their true feelings, will support this Motion.
  Mr. CHURCH ILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 153.

  Division No. 55.]

  AYES.

  [4.15 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Goldstone, Frank

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Adamson, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Gulland, John W.

  Armitage, R.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Hackett, J.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Delany, William

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Barton, William

  Dillon, John

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Doris, W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Randnor)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Hayward, Evan

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elverston, H.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brace, William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Brady, P. J.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Higham, John Sharp

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Falconer, J.

  Hinds, John

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Ferens, T. R.

  Home, C Silvester (Ipswich)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Hudson, Walter

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Field, William

  Hughes, S. L

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Furness, Stephen

  Johnson, W.

  Clough, William

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Granville, H. J.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  St. Maur, Harold

  Keating, M.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  O'Grady, James

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

  Law, Hugh A.

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  O'Malley, William

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Leach, Charles

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lundon, T.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southward, West)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  MacGhee, Richard

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

  Sutton, John E

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Pointer, Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, George

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mathias, Richard

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Webb, H.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Richards, Thomas

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morrell, Philip

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Benn.

  Neilson, Francis

  Rowlands, James

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mackinder, H J.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baird, J. L.

  Croft, H. P.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Doughty, Sir George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newman, John R. P.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Barnston, H.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gilmour, Captain J.

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Gordon, J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Greene, W. R.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gretton, John

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

  Bird, A.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boyton, J.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cator, John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cave, George

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Royds, Edmund

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Kerry, Earl of

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Spear, John Ward

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Stanier, Beville

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  1618

  1619

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Swift, Rigby

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. S. Stuart.

  Talbot, Lord E.

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

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Younger, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Winterton, Earl

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 214.

  Division No. 56.]

  AYES.

  [4.20 a.m.

  Archer-Shoe, Major M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Baird, J. L.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

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

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, James Augustus

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rice, Hon Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunter Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kerry, Earl of

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cator, John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tullibardine, Marquees of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Clive, Percy A.

  Mills, Hon. Charles T.

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Moore, William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wood, Hen. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kettingham

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Younger, George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord E. Talbot and Mr. H. W. Forster.

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Adamson, William

  Black, Arthur W.

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Brace, William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Clough, William

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Barton, William

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Beale, William Phipson

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Raffin, Peter Wilson

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Davies, Timotry (Lines, Louth)

  Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Doris, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas

  Duffy, William J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Funess)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  MacGhee, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Elverston, Harold

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rowlands, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  St. Maur, Harold

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

  Falconer, James

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mathias, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Meehan, F. E. (Leitrim, North)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Gulland, John William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Moorey, John J.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hackett, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Summers, James Woolley

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, Robert

  Sutton, John E.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Grady, James

  Wardle, George J.

  Hinds, John

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

  Webb, H.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Malley, William

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Whyte, A. F.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Johnson, William

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Benn.

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  [The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott) in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 10.—(Repeal of S. 91 of 10 Edw, 7, c. 5.)
  Section ninety-one of the principal Act (which provides for the payment of half the proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities) shall cease to have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYmoved that the Clause be postponed.
  I think that everybody in the House must admit that this is a Motion which really ought to be accepted by the Government as acceptable at this moment. It has been already pointed out, and I do not
  1622
  desire on this Motion to go into the merits or demerits of the Clause, and it is most undesirable that we should enter at this hour of the morning upon a Clause of this nature. It has far-reaching effects. It is an entire reversal of that which has been held out by the Government again and again during the past two years. The effect it has on local authorities in the present and perhaps future years is an element which must weigh with us very seriously, and must convince the House, if they remember the scenes of a few weeks ago, that it is most undesirable at this hour in the morning to enter upon this Clause. I move this Motion therefore in order that, as the Government insists upon our going on with business

  1623
  we may pass over this Clause and proceed with others which, evidently from the state of the notice paper, are not of the same interest or weight. The Government will attain their object: they will get the progress they desire with the Bill, and at the same time we will reserve this most important Clause for consideration to a more favourable occasion. A good deal has been said about the time being given to this Bill—that if it had been discussed in November last probably no longer time would have been given. It must be remembered that the Finance Bill of November last did not contain this Clause at all, and therefore that has altered the matter very materially. I do not think anyone can deny that even a whole day given to the discussion of an important question like this would be too long. So that if we are to be thrown back upon this somewhat ancient history we must also remember exactly the position of the two Finance Bills together. I would point out that the Government, if they agree to this postponement they are not doing anything that would do them any injury whatever. This repeal, which is really all this Clause contains, is in rather a peculiar position, because it is already repealed in two clauses and a schedule, which gives it certainly a prominence we do not usually expect in the repealing of a Clause in a Bill. What I am asking for at the present time I would earnestly urge the Government to accept, because I think my motion is in the interest of the business of the Government themselves.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that we do not see our way to accede to the request made by the hon. Member in a speech with the moderation of which no one could quarrel. We agree it is an important Clause. It is impossible to deny that the hour is far advanced beyond the usual hour of our sitting. But the hour would not have been so far advanced had we not had so many Motions to report progress, and so many points of Order, and had not two and a half hours been consumed in discussing the first Clause on which no division was actually taken. But it is far from my purpose to enter into recrimination. I only say, if we were to accede to the request of the Motion we should be left not only with this Clause, but with twenty-two pages of new Clauses which raise the whole of the controversy of the great Budget of 1909. It is absolutely certain that unless we persevere upon our
  1624
  course the financial business could never be completed. The atmosphere of the House is now much more genial. I think we are all getting into the swing of an all-night sitting, and I do not doubt that in a very comparatively short space of time we shall have made substantial progress without any repetition of the exciting moments through which we have all passed and in regard to which we are no doubt all sensible of regret. [HON MEMBERS: "No."] I am very glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite have enjoyed themselves. I hope the House will not consume much time upon the Motion to postpone the Clause, but will address themselves to its merits. There is ample time for the consideration of the important points the Clause contains, and my right hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, is fully prepared to enter into a most careful discussion of any matters which may be raised from the Benches opposite.
  Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the discussion would have been more profitable this evening if it had not been for the time consumed earlier in the evening in a discussion at the end of which no division was taken. Whatever may be the truth of that, I take note of the remarkable alteration in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to address the House on this last occasion and rejoice at the change. I venture to say if that change had occurred two or three hours ago there would have been a much greater obstacle removed from the progress of business than any offered by the action of my hon. Friends behind me.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Nonsense.
  Mr. LONG: But I am more susceptible to the Home Secretary's blandishments than the Home Secretary's followers are. I do not want to discuss that part of his speech further. But I want to express my astonishment that he has not thought it right to accept the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am surprised that nobody below the Gangway on the other side has risen to support this Motion, and for this reason—the section which this Clause proposes to repeal was placed in the original Act very largely at the invitation of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side. It was from below the Gangway that a motion was made in a great hurry that the Government should restore to the local authorities a portion of that

  1625
  which they were taking from them by their new form of taxation, and it was in that that some of the supporters of the Government found justification for giving support to that part of the Bill. This Clause with which we are asked to discuss at five in the morning proposals to repeal a provision which the Government deliberately inserted to the effect that half of the Land Duties should be restored to the local authorities. I do not want to revert to the arguments which have been used earlier in the evening. I "an only say that having been in this House for more than thirty years, never have I known a Government to adhere so closely to their own interpretation of a promise in face of the fact that the Clause under consideration is the most important in the Bill. This is the Clause which we are asked to Debate at five o'clock, and this is the interpretation which the Government places on the language of the Prime Minister. I venture to say that the local authorities will take note of the fact that in the opinion of the Government five o'clock in the morning is the right time to discuss, for the last time with any chance of Amendment, a matter which vitally concerns their interests and which materially affects the position of the ratepayers. I do not believe that in the whole history of legislation affecting our great municipalities there has ever been so scandalous a case.
  Mr. CROFT: The Home Secretary told us that this Bill included concessions in all its Clauses. I desire to point out that no concession can be found in this Clause. It embodies a great fundamental change which alters the whole character of the Budget and the whole question as put before the electors at the last two elections. I represent a Constituency where I suppose this question of Increment is of greater importance almost than in any other Constituency in the country.
  The CHAIRMAN: That will arise on the Clause itself, not on this Motion.
  Mr. CROFT: I bow, Sir, to your ruling. I was pointing out that this Clause is so important that it is imperative it should be discussed when there is an opportunity for the Press to record the views of hon. Members upon it. The Government, in pursuance of their policy of silencing the democracy, as they always do, are now prepared to silence the voice of the representatives of the people in this House. I will ask the right hon.
  1626
  Gentleman what possible difference it can make to postpone this Clause which undoubtedly at the recent election entirely altered the position taken up by his friends at the previous election. All the candidates at the other side quoted this Clause as an answer to our charge that the communities were being robbed of the increment value.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I was amazed that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) got up at that box and refused to accept a Motion for the postponement of this Clause. I think the right hon. Gentleman had one of those chances which rarely occur to a Leader of this House of extricating the House from an almost painful position. I thought he would recognise that there is not a single municipality which is not affected by this Clause. There is not a single great town which is not anxiously looking to the debate on this question, and I thought he would seize that opportunity. If he had done so I believe he would not have lost time for this Bill, but would rather have gained time, and he would certainly have regained some of that reputation which he has lost so heavily to-night. Instead of trying to make some arrangement with those who are opposed to him, he, with a mocking smile on his face, regardless of the great interests involved, said, "Get on, proceed with the discussion; there is plenty of time yet." I can testify to the fact that many Members of the House who are intimately connected with this particular question went home, having left the House because they heard the Prime Minister say practically that we should not sit up to any late hour. Really after Members specially interested in this question have left the House under the impression that we would not consider this most important clause in the Bill to take it now is a flagrant breach of faith. I have had the honour of a seat in this House for twenty-one years and I never knew such a flagrant breach of faith by a leader.
  The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a debate again upon that point, on the Motion to report Progress.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think I have given substantial reasons why you should postpone this Clause. Again and again I have heard the argument in this House that a Clause ought to be postponed because Gentlemen who took a leading part in the discussion of the particular subject and had particular knowledge

  1627
  of the matters embodied in the Clause, had left the House on the understanding that the matter was not to be taken. Here we are at five o'clock. Look at the Reporters' Gallery. It is almost empty. Every single large town is looking for a report of this debate, and the matter, whether settled one way or the other, is one of supreme importance to them and must affect every local exchequer. When one comes to think that the Government have changed their minds upon it three times already, I think they ought to have at least treated us to their reasons in a first-class debate at some hour when that debate could be reported and when there would be something like a full House to listen to our proceedings. I am certain the Government will not gain by their proceedings to-night. They will have lost caste not only in this House but in every great town and with every big municipality.
  An HON. MEMBER: Are you sorry?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, I am sorry that any leader should permit such an open breach of faith. Even now there is yet time for the right hon. Gentleman. He may see how earnestly we intend to discuss this position at a time when the Debate can be fairly fully reported, and when the Members interested can give expression to their views and effect to them in the Lobby.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I fear that any appeals on behalf of London to the Government will fall on stoney ground, but London is specially damnified by the financial arrangement which the Government proposes, and will lose a considerable sum of money to which it is entitled. If the position is not fully discussed London will suffer particularly in the Reversion Duty. London is more interested in that than any other part of the country. In other matters it is very hard because the poorer parts, which are very heavily rated, will be hit. I think it is very unfair that we should have no chance of discussing the proposal of the Government and obtaining such amendments as we can in favour of London. We want to have a fair discussion and proper time, because the figures and facts are complicated, and it is difficult for those who wish to put them before the House to do properly at this hour. Representing one of the poorest parts, one of the poorest constituencies in the country, I would wish
  1628
  to point out how much we lose as the proposal stands now. I ask you to consider the case of London, and there are others who represent other districts in London which are poor, and yet you will not allow us to discuss it at a time when the House will be ready to listen. We ask you not to make injustice more unjust by refusing us the opportunity we seek.
  Mr. MACKINDER: I wish to support the Motion for reasons which will be understood by at least five supporters of the Government. The last speaker referred to the case of London. I am going to refer to the case of another great city. Five of my colleagues in the representation of Glasgow are Liberals, one of them being the late Leader of the Labour party, who is not in his place just now, but we were all pleased to see him return in fully restored health I hope. It will be known to these five Members that when the first announcement was made that the Government intended to take the action covered by this clause the Glasgow Corporation, consisting of representatives of all parties, and if we take the representatives of the city, mainly supporting the Government, unanimously passed a resolution of protest against that action which is now proposed. I say it is little short of flouting one of your chief local authorities to bring a matter of this importance up at this hour of the morning, and to ask us to consider it under conditions when no proper report can appear which will enable the representatives of the corporation to know what has taken place. I do not in the least complain of this House overruling any opinion expressed by a corporation, but when one of the largest corporations in the three kingdoms, consisting of men of all parties, unanimously expresses an opinion on a matter concerning its finances, it is little short of a scandal that we should have to consider it at this hour.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is a case for postponing this clause which would not apply to any other clause in the Bill. In the case of other clauses it would be possible to discuss them afterwards upon Report. But if I am right it will be impossible to propose the elision of this clause upon Report because leaving it out would throw a burden upon the Exchequer. If it goes through now it is the last we stall hear of it, and we shall have no further opportunity of discussing so important a question as whether we shall give back to the local authorities the financial help they were confidently led to expect since

  1629
  the Debates of the year before last. Perhaps I may ask the Chairman whether we can discuss the matter further after to night.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is quite right in saying that nothing could be proposed which would bring a further charge upon the Exchequer, but still it might be discussed at a further stage.
  Mr. GUINNESS: From the Chairman's reply it is quite clear that this is the only practical opportunity we shall have of discussing the subject.
  5.0 A.M.
  The right hon. Gentleman must have known perfectly well that this Clause could not be discussed at a reasonable hour. He must have known that this Clause is really what we all want to discuss. He must have known that every local authority in the country is up in arms against it. In my own case the local authority, including a large number of those in political agreement with the right hon. Gentleman, strongly objects to this Clause. He must have known that there were points of substance in the beginning of the Bill—points of such substance that the Secretary for the Treasury has expressed willingness to consider Amendments at a later stage. In addition to that I think it most unreasonable to take a point of this kind when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is away. I am sure all of us regret very much the ill-health of the right hon. Gentleman, which prevents him being present, but in his absence it is most inadvisable that a matter of this kind should be dealt with. Obviously the Secretary for the Treasury is not in a position to come to a decision on large matters of policy. It is a matter which should be discussed in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Discussing it in his absence is nothing short of a farce. We know what happens. The Secretary for the Treasury is not in a position to accept Amendments. He has to take the instructions of the Cabinet; he is
  not strong enough to say without consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a large matter of this kind can be modified.
  The discussion, therefore, is merely academic. We want to discuss it in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was entirely owing to his conciliatory attitude towards local authorities that he was able to get these Land Taxes through in the form which they took. If he had not been able to put forward a definite promise in the way he did, to remit this taxation in favour of local authorities, and give half of it back to them, it is perfectly certain that his task would have been enormously increased. In view of the fact that we cannot discuss this matter again on Report stage, and that it cannot be discussed in another place, where Finance Bill Amendments are, of course, out of order, I think; there is an exceptionally strong case for I postponing this Clause and going on to; other matters if the Government are not content with the progress made. We know the Home Secretary has thrown over the Prime Minister before now. I do not think it pays him, and I do not think it will pay the Government. They may use their kangaroo closure with the Amendments, but they cannot use their new-fangled form of gag for discussing the new Clauses. If the Opposition are not given fair play in their perfectly legitimate demands for opportunities of discussing a really important point of the Bill, right hon. Gentlemen may feel certain that they will have ample opportunity of getting their own back when they come to the new Clauses.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to Move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 148.

  Division No. 57.]

  AYES.

  [5.5 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brace, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Adamson, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Barton, William

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Beale, William Phipson

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Bentham, George J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Delany, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clough, William

  Doris, William

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

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

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Elverston, Harold

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Essex, Richard Waite.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Falconer, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  MacGhee, Richard

  Roberts, George (Norwich)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robinson, Sidney

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Rowlands, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

  St. Maur, Harold

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mathias, Richard

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Meagher, Michael

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

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Hackett, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Worrell, Philip

  Summers, James Woolley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Munro, Robert

  Sutton, John E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Verney, Sir H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Wardle, G. J.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Malley, William

  Webb, H.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Johnson, William

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Pollard, Sir George H.

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

  Keating, Matthew

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Baird, J. L.

  Cator, John

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  Cave, George

  Gordon, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gretton, John

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Barnston, H.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Bigland, Alfred

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Bird, Alfred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Boyton, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Fleming, Valentine

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  1632

  1633

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Kerry, Earl of

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

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

  Lewisham,. Viscount

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Touche, George Alexander

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rawsen, Col. Richard H.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Moore, William

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Willoughby, Major Hn. Claude

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Winterton, Earl

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Edmund

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wood, John Stalybridge

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Nicholson, William G. (Potersfield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Younger, George

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

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Stanier, Beville

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Colonel Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Steel.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

  Maitland.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 208.

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES.

  [5.15 a.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, John

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Gretton, John

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Rothschild, Lionel de

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicke

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Boyton, James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanier, Beville

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Swift, Rigby

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cator, John

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

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cave, George

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Clyde, James Avor.

  Moore, William

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

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

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fisher, William Mayes

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Laurence Hardy and Mr. Pollock

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Forster, Henry William

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

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

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

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Armitage, Robert

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Palmer, Godfrey

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Barton, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Beale, William Phipson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bentham, George J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pointer, Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hinds, John

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Bowerman, C W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brace, William

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brady, P. J.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Johnson, W.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Jones, E. R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Richards, Thomas

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robinson, Sidney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rowlands, James

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A.

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

  Leach, Charles

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lundon, T.

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dillon, John

  MacGhee, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Summers, James Woolley

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Elverston, Harold

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)

  Essex, Richard Walker

  Mathias, Richard

  Toulmin, George

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Verney, Sir Henry

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Walters, John Tudor

  Ffrench, Peter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wardle, G. J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro, Robert

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Furness, Stephen

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Neilson, Francis

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Greig, Colonel James William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Dowd, John

  Hackett, John

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Gulland and Mr. Soares.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  The CHAIRMAN: Various hon. Members propose Amendments for the purpose of giving a temporary operation to this Clause, and they propose to carry out that intention, some by Amendments at the beginning and some at the end of the Clause. I think the matter comes at the end of the Clause. The second Amendment
  1636
  in the name of the hon. Member for South Berks is in order.
  Mr. MOUNT: The object of my Amendment is to change the direction of the money to the local taxation authorities instead of giving it to the Exchequer. The Clause will read as follows:—"Sub-section

  1637
  (1) of Section 91 of the principal Act (which provides for the payment of half of the proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities) shall, during the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twelve, cease to have effect, as though the words one half of were omitted therefrom."
  The CHAIRMAN: I did not know the hon. Member desired to move that Amendment. Of course, there is no objection if he desires to move his Amendments altogether, but that raises the main subject of the Clause. If that is desired by the Committee, I have no objection.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On a point of Order, if that is raised and a decision is come to, will it preclude an Amendment limiting the Clause to a particular date, as proposed by various Amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think so, probably.
  Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Then might I suggest that it is of great importance that the Amendment should be moved limiting this Clause to a particular date, and may I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend not to move his Amendment.
  Mr. MOUNT: If that is so, I will not move.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would be most convenient. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Salford would be a charge on the Exchequer, and that is out of order.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I direct your attention to the proceedings which took place in this House with you in the Chair on 23rd June, 1909. I will read the extract. The hon. Member for Bolton moved in this instance that half of the duty should go to the local authorities—the proposal in the Bill then being that the whole should go into the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Durham, then Mr. Lambton, rose to a point of Order, and asked whether the Amendment was in accordance with the title of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary for the hon. Member to go farther. It is quite clear to me that was a case of interception. This is not a case of interception, but a charge on the Consolidated Fund, on which a resolution is required. The hon. Member's Amendment coming later on the Paper is in order.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: May I suggest this is merely a question of distribution, and not a question of imposition?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, this is a charge on the Exchequer.
  Mr. L. HARDYmoved to leave out the words "shall cease to have effect, and shall be deemed never to have had effect," and to insert instead thereof the words "not have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen." I desire to move the Amendment standing in my name for the purpose of giving the Clause a definite limitation in time which apparently, by the statements of Members of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is really in their own mind. They have always, whilst they have advocated this alteration, held out some hope that it might not be a permanent limitation of the Grant. This Amendment of mine limiting the Grant to two years raises the question definitely and once and for all. We may allow that at the present moment the Government have reasons for desiring that a temporary bargain should be come to in connection with the finance of the year. They have laid before us their views in connection with this bargain. They have pleaded that in consequence of not making any demand in connection with the cessation of the disqualification of the pauper relief they cannot go further at the present time. If we accept these arguments as a temporary reason, I think it is very desirable that we should distinctly place in this Finance Bill—and this is the first opportunity we have of saying what is the intention of this House our intention of limiting the time. I think that is going a good long way to meeting what the Government desire.
  What we do desire to secure is that in this Clause there shall be an acknowledgment on the part of the House that in future these Land Duties shall go to the local authorities. That is the old pledge of the Government, and that is the pledge we desire to keep them to. Originally in the Debate on the Finance Bill we remember how the whole of these Land Duties were for the first time taken for the Imperial Exchequer, instead of—as it was always held out, and as recommended by the Royal Commission—going to the local authorities. I do not suppose there was any stronger speech made in connection with this matter than one made by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in the discussion on the

  1639
  Finance Bill. He went so far as to say the whole of the Land Duties should go to the local authorities, and he put forward every argument he could possibly adduce to show that it was necessary the recommendations of the Royal Commission should be adhered to. The Government yielded at that time, and they gave half the Land Duties to the municipal authorities. On the next occasion when it came up we find the local authorities were again put off. When a further discussion on finance took place there was a suggestion that the money that was accruing should be given for this purpose, instead of for a diminution of other duties which they had relied on for their local resources. It was not really a fair offer, but still it was an endeavour on the part of the Government to meet the difficulties of the position. That was how we left it in the late autumn, of last year, and then when we came back to the House we had a new proposal in connection with this matter, which is enshrined in this Clause. Therefore, when we see that the Government all through has been extremely reluctant to grant this relief, it is very necessary for us to see if we cannot secure in this Clause some acknowledgment on the part of the Government that these local authorities should be able to look forward to having this relief to their rates. I am not very particular as to the actual date. I have put it at two years, but if the Government thought a year longer was necessary I do not see that a year or two makes much difference. What is really required is a definite statement that these taxes are to go to the local authorities in the end. That is a point that is felt very strongly throughout the country. I expect we shall have the old argument raised again as to the relief the Government are giving to the rates in regard to old age pensions, I can only again repeat the protest so often uttered from this side of the House at all events, namely, that when old age pensions had been acknowledged as an Imperial charge there was no right on the part of the Government to take credit for what might be saved to the rates by the change which had taken place. Even if we were to fall back from that position we could put forward the plea that it has been for a long time maintained that the Poor Law is undoubtedly an Imperial rather than a local charge. We could go further and point to figures which have been given in this
  1640
  House as showing that while increasing burdens have been put on local authorities, no real consideration has been given to their claims. From whatever point of view you look at it there can be no strength in the argument of the Government that they have given great relief to the rates.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman desires the House to clearly understand that a limited term is set to the operation of the Clause. I have had handed to me a manuscript Amendment of the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger), and a similar Amendment is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Munro-Ferguson), the actual proposal of both these Amendments being not to limit the operation of this Clause to a definite date, but until Parliament otherwise determines. I addressed many arguments to the House when we were discussing this matter on the Second Reading in support of the view of the Government, which they held, and which they now hold, as to the justice of their proposal made by this Clause, and I do not intend at this moment to repeat those arguments, but I made a very definite statement, and it was this—that the Government meant this Clause to be one that would have merely temporary operation until the work of the committee, which we intend to set up at once, shall be completed, and the recommendations that committee makes for the future relations between the local authorities and the central Government can be embodied in a Bill, and I am ready to give a statutory pledge confirming that undertaking, and to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs, and the Member for Leith Burghs to insert into the Bill words providing that the operation of this Clause shall be until Parliament otherwise determines. That will be clearly showing what the intention of the Government is. It will give binding force to the declaration I make, and will be an earnest of the good faith and good intentions of the Government in this particular matter.
  Mr. LONG: We recognise fully the conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has just made the suggestion that he will accept certain Amendments, but he will forgive me reminding him when he says that his concession is an earnest of the good intentions of the Government that we are very familiar with the fate of

  1641
  good intentions. I admire his anxiety to avoid saying anything of a very controversial character, but we are not in a particular humour to put any great importance upon good intentions. This opens up a very wide question. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment has referred to the immediate effect of the proposals of the Government, but in his desire to abbreviate his remarks he has not referred the Government and the Committee to a very important feature of the case which was brought forward with very great force by more than one Member on the opposite side of the House when they were speaking on behalf of the corporations and county councils at a time when they found it easier than they do now to make their convictions and their votes fit each other. It is a feature which brings out one effect of the repeal of this provision, which is most serious to the local authorities. The Government themselves, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when challenged in regard to the Land Taxes with the allegation that their product would be very small and that they were going to make a great outlay of the nation's money to get a very poor return, told us, both in the House and in the country, that it was not so much the present yield of these Land Taxes that they relied upon but the future product—that they would grow, and grow rapidly, until they became a most valuable asset. Now no provision is made in this Clause or in the subsequent one for the restoration to the local authorities of the growth of the land taxes which would have been of great value to them had they received it. The Government based the whole of those taxes upon the theory that the increase in the value of property would have been the creation of the local authorities and municipalities. They are taking away these values from the municipalities and making a wholly inadequate contribution in lieu of them from the present, and they are taking no steps for the future. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury now assures us that he is ready to insert words providing that they shall remain in the hands of the Government only until Parliament otherwise determines. We were told in the Debate on local taxation that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission or a Committee with reference to this question, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to that to-night. Now the Member for Ashton suggested a limit of two years. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will
  1642
  not adopt that, and he proposes to put in extremely vague words which will say that the further changes are not to operate until the Government has had time for the Commission to report and for the Government then to decide what it will do. I am ready to give the Government every credit in the world for their intentions; but it is offering us a very poor security, and I think it can only be done in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Hon. Members opposite are surrendering now the entire policy which they supported by speeches and votes in the original Bill. The only way in which you can treat the local authorities fairly is by admitting the fact frankly that you are taking away from them that which has always been regarded by both sides, until this Bill was brought in, as their property, and making no restitution for what is their property, and, therefore, if they are entering into a bargain with the House of Commons they should not allow it unless restitution has to be made within a limited period. Surely that Amendment is only reasonable. It is more than reasonable, and merely expresses common justice to the local authorities. I do not want to repeat what has been said before, but I do profoundly regret that the rights of the county councils and municipalities and other authorities to this important source of local taxation should be taken away—it is the only source of revenue almost that the local authorities have left open to them. If they are unable to deal with this question now perhaps it is the last time they will have the chance. It is not too much to ask that you should impose a limit on the operations of the Act, and therefore enter into a direct contract with Parliament and the country that whilst you are responsible you will deal with the question, and if you are able to find some other source of taxation you will return this, which really belongs to them, to the local authorities, and will do your best to repair the injustice you are committing by this act.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: We fully recognise the conciliatory tone with which the Secretary to the Treasury has spoken, but I think the words of his proposal are not so satisfactory as those of my hon. Friend. What do these words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines," really mean? They mean something of the same kind as the Government meant when they promised the immediate reform of local taxation.

  1643
  The present Government promised it. Last year they gave a definite promise, which they have not kept. They have shown really the way in which they regard the carrying out of a pledge in that matter. They have directly set aside what we were led to believe was the mandate of the people. I have always heard the Government claim that the Budget of 1909 was one which had received the explicit approval of the people of the country, not only in one, but in two, elections. One of the main clauses of that Budget was the allocation of half of these Land Taxes to the local authorities. I think it is a pretty well known fact that if the Government had not given way on that point during the discussion on the Land Taxes they could not have got the Land Taxes through. They only got them through because they conceded that to the expressed wishes of their own supporters as well as to Members on this side of the House and gave half of the proceeds of the Land Taxes to the local authorities. I could quote a great many of these promises from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other Gentlemen on these benches directly in favour of the proposal we now make. On the strength of that proposal their Budget was carried, and on the strength of that Clause in the Budget that Budget received the sanction, according to them, of the people. What do they do now? They did not go to the country and announce that they were going to repeal that provision. They waited till they got over what they thought might be an awkward election, and when they got back to the House they said "Now, we are going to repeal it." I do not think that is playing fair with the local authorities, and certainly not with the country. If they had gone to the country and announced what was their intention about this tax they would have come back with a very different majority from that they have. I do very strongly urge the Government to reconsider their decision and to accept the Amendments. The Government tell us that they have given such a sop to the local authorities by the payment of extra old age pensions that they are fully entitled to take away the half proceeds of the Land Taxes. They did not go to the country upon that ground either, because just before the election they took very great care to make provision for the payment of the first quarter of these additional old age pensions by direct grant from the Exchequer.
  1644
  It was then claimed what an extraordinary relief to the rates there would be because of this payment by the Exchequer. It is very well known that the Government would not have dared to go on with their proposals to make the local authorities pay half the cost of these pauper pensions, because every board of guardians in the country was up in arms against such an idea. We heard numerous speeches during the long hours of the passage of that Budget of what were to be the wonderful after-effects of these Land Taxes. In the first year, it was said, they would not produce much, but we were perhaps rash enough to believe that they would in years to come bring in a very substantial revenue. I believe that had a considerable effect on the votes of a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite, for they went to the constituencies and said that half the yield in the future was to go to the local authorities. The least the Government can do, if it really is essential in the interests of the financial arrangements of this year to deprive local authorities of what is their just due, is to accept the Amendment and make it perfectly clear that they are only taking away for one year what the country admits is really the right and the property of the local authorities.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have been subjected to a double disappointment tonight. I certainly thought when the Financial Secretary got up early in the Debate that he was going to tell us that the Government would accept this Amendment. I always understood that the attitude of the Government towards this Amendment was this—that "it is quite true," they said, "we are taking away from local authorities some great benefit which we conferred upon them, but we are only taking that away as a temporary measure, and as a consideration for taking it away we are giving them a very great boon and benefit." If that is the attitude of the Government, if they are really perfectly honest in their intention of only taking this great benefit away from the local authorities for a short period whilst they can through this Parliamentary Committee solve this enormous problem of the readjustment of Imperial and local taxation, if they are really in earnest as to that, then why do not they put this limiting clause into the Bill? Why do not they definitely tell the local authorities that in two years' time they will revert to their old intention of giving them half, if they do not give them the whole, of the proceeds of those duties. Why do not they?

  1645
  Instead of that, the Financial Secretary gets up and says: "Oh, as an earnest of our intention we will put into the Bill until Parliament otherwise determines.'" That is not worth the paper it is written on. It is of exactly the same value as the specific pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would deal with the whole of this question this very year, and in a thorough manner. It is of exactly the same value as the promise made by the Leader of the party opposite in the House of Lords when he said that the Government, if returned to power—and they are returned to power—would deal with that question this Session.
  What is the excuse for not dealing with it? Only that they have engaged in a quarrel with the House of Lords. And when they put in their Bill "until Parliament otherwise determines," what will happen? Next year will Parliament "otherwise determine"? Oh, dear no; we shall be told, if hon. Gentlemen opposite still guide the destinies of this country, that "We are engaged on a Home Rule Bill for Ireland; we could not possibly think of raising this Question on the floor of the House." And in the following Session, when we ask again, they will say, "Oh, no; we have a great measure for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales. We could not possibly think of dealing with this very large question now." It is precisely because we know this pledge is worth absolutely nothing that we treat it with scorn and contempt. My hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, said to the Government, "If you will not limit the period to two years make some motion of your own to extend it. "He did not even ask them to limit it to two years." But, "say the Government," look at the splendid bargain that we are making with you; look at the magnificent gift that we are giving to the local authorities pending a settlement. And when is it going to settle? I should like to know a little more about this Departmental Committee.
  Perhaps the night hon. Gentleman will remember that it is a month ago since he promised me this Departmental Committee. Perhaps he will be able to tell us to-night from what quarter he is going to draw the members of the committee. I see he nods his head and promises to give us some information. We are all anxious to have it. We want to know who are to serve on the committee, and above all we want to know what is to be the reference to the committee. We want to know
  1646
  whether this is going to be another Royal Commission, sitting for five years and taking a mass of evidence. We maintain that all the evidence is at the disposal of the Departmental Committee, and what we want is a small committee of experts, on which local authorities should be adequately represented, and that that committee should not have too wide a reference, but a reference which will enable it to report in a practical way at least within a year. If the committee is of that kind, and its reference is so limited that it can report within the year, why does not the Government put this limiting Amendment into their Clause. Why are they afraid of it. Can they expect us to believe that they are heart and soul with us in wishing to restore to the local authorities that source of revenue they have taken away from them. I can speak for the local authorities because I have been Chairman of the Finance Committee of the largest of them for three years.
  We have been taunted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with not broadening our basis of taxation and finding new sources of revenue. What new sources of revenue could we have found except by rating land values of this description. They were the sources of revenue from which a good many municipalities thought they might derive great profit. Now they are to be ear-marked by the Government and taken away entirely from the local authorities. It is a mistake to tell local authorities that they ought to broaden their basis of taxation and seek new sources of revenue, when the one source of revenue of which the Government had promised to give them one half, they are going to take permanently away from them. I cannot help thinking that it is their intention to take it permanently away from them. I should not be at all surprised if they continued to hold that the bargain they have made with the local authorities is a very good one for the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday night made an attack on a certain report and figures issued over my name as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council. I believe he holds that report in his hand. He called it a very misleading statement. I think I heard him rather resent the charge when it was made against him of making a misleading statement. I equally resent the charge. Now I will compare my statement with his, and I will ask the Committee to judge which of us has made a misleading statement—which of us has

  1647
  misled the House and which of us have misled the ratepayers. I think the Committee will come to the conclusion that it is not I who have misled the ratepayers or the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that taking into account the decreased valuation of licensed premises there is a substantial and distinct benefit conferred on the London ratepayers in connection with this Clause.
  I say there is a substantial and a distinct loss conferred upon the London ratepayers in connection with this Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman can check my statement. There is the loss to the London ratepayers from the financial operations of His Majesty's Government under the Finance Act. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said you must not put the whole of the decrease in licence value down to the Finance Act. Well, we can put most of it down to the Finance Act, if not the whole of it. It was on account of the decrease in the value of licensed property caused by the Finance Act that the appeals were made by licence holders to the Assessment Committee, and solely in consequence of the Finance Act that the assessments were lowered, and London loses to-day £157,000 a year. I think that is rather an under-estimate than an over-estimate. Let me tell the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that there are 600 appeals pending at the present moment, and every one of these appeals, if successful, would increase the amount of the reductoin in the assessable value and increase the amount of loss to the London ratepayers from that cause. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury actually ignored this portion of the loss to the London ratepayers until certain interjections came from the Member for St. Pancras South (Captain Jessel) and the hon. Member for Mile End (Hon. H. Lawson), then he was content to take some notice of it. I think he might have mentioned it before. There is another source of loss in the moiety of the Land Value Duties, amounting to £100,000.
  An HON. MEMBER: Why?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Because you are going to take them away. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury did put a question that is worth answering. He asked, "How do you arrive at £100,000 as the value of your moiety of these duties?" I will tell him. We arrived at it from figures supplied by himself, when in answer to a question in this House he estimated the
  1648
  yield of these duties for 1910–11 at£1,000,000 in the third year. The Act was postponed from 1910–11 to 1911–12, and you get £500,000 as the moiety of the Land Value Duties due to all local bodies. London is entitled to one-fifth of the total. She contributes one-fifth of the whole of Imperial taxation, and the assessable value of London would give us one-fifth again. So I say that on the figures supplied by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury we can fairly claim that London has lost £100,000 on that account. Adding these two losses together you get a total loss of £257,000 a year to the London ratepayers. On the other side what is London saving? The right hon. Gentleman complained of our figures, and said we had under-estimated them. There was good ground for our Estimates. He said we had under-estimated the savings from the relief to the Poor Law by the removal of the pauper disqualification and putting the paupers on the taxes instead of the rates. We have put it at £105,000. He said we ought to have put it at £117,000. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has one advantage over us; he was able to get figures from the Local Government Board not available to us. We gave the Estimate of £105,000 as the best one we could get from the sources at our disposal. I am willing, for the sake-of argument, to accept his figures, and to say that we shall get not £105,000 but £117,000 from that source. Then he quarrelled with the figure which we put in our Estimate—£47,000—as being the amount that would have to be made up for the shortage in the Spirit Tax. He said it ought to have been £57,000. I do not think he is right. It is a bare estimate, and is something in the nature of a guess, and I believe we are just as likely to be right as he is. We took that figure of £47,000 from figures supplied by himself, given by him on 20th February of this year, when he estimated the total deficiency he would have to make up at from £260,000 to £270,000, and the licence proportion of that would be £47,000, and not £57,000. But I will give him both his figures and the net loss to the London ratepayers works out at £83,000 per annum—London losing £257,000 a year and getting back £174,000. In the face of that the right hon. Gentleman has the temerity to assert in this House that, taking into account the decreased valuation of licensed premises there is a substantial and distinct benefit conferred upon the London ratepayer in connection with this. I say there is a substantial and distinct

  1649
  loss, and that I have amply proved to the House. If anyone has made a misleading statement it is not the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the London County Council, but the Gentleman who occupies the position of Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: As senior representative of one of the five greatest municipalities in England, I cannot remain silent on this occasion. The small distance which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has advanced in the direction of concession is a marked contrast in Parliamentary insight to that lamentable deficiency of Parliamentary insight shown by his Leader to-night. I rise to say that I am convinced that but for the special and exceptional conditions under which we are discussing this question, a very different result would be shown. We have that state of Parliamentary doggedness that blocks the position when an all-night sitting is going on. We have in the blue twilight now entering the windows of this Chamber evidence of the same conditions which beget the indifference with which the merits of this question are being regarded upon the other side of the House, but which I hope will be visited hereafter upon those who now disregard those municipal authorities for which, on other occasions they profess so much lip service and affection.
  I have some right to speak on this subject, because in the Parliament of 1900, or even of 1895, I was in a fiduciary capacity the owner of the largest landed estate, and I voted for a measure which would have given to the municipalities some of this increment in land. I did so because I have always felt that if there is one essential improveable and local asset which belongs by right to local authorities, it is this increment value on land. What was expected by the country when they gave their sanction, in such fashion as they did give it, to the passing of the Budget of 1909–10. My hon. Friends will bear me out that some of us drew attention to the proposed distribution of this new value which is taken by the State. We said this giving back of half this—which was then promised—was not a real giving back. We said you will not get what you expect. We said it is impossible to devise a rational or equitable system of distribution. We pointed to the advocacy of the Scottish crofter and the Irish peasant in competition with municipal claims. But our representations
  1650
  were not listened to, and this very point to which attention was drawn was rejected. So far as the Budget of that time was supported it was supported in the belief that the municipalities were to receive half the amount and now in direct defiance of that popular verdict we have now come to this position. The right hon. Gentleman offered us some kind of a solatium and met us a bit in our demands. But there is this profound difference between what he offers and what my hon. Friend is asking for. What my hon. Friend is asking for will secure that which the right hon. Gentleman's proposal will not give us, and that is the certainty of a Parliamentary opportunity of discussing this question at an early time. The words the right hon. Gentleman offers us—"until Parliament shall otherwise order"—whether printed or not, are already in every Act of Parliament this House has passed. The right hon. Gentleman's offer is not worthy of our acceptance.
  Mr. CROFT: I desire, in supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to point out in regard to this important Amendment that the state of this House can hardly be called alert or bright when hon. Members are not only sleeping right and left, but are even lying down on the back benches.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better apply himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman told us this was a temporary measure, but I venture to think that anybody who has studied the history of this question must realise that the local authorities have no hope in the future of getting this money regranted to them. I venture to think that, considering the pledges given at the election by hon. Members opposite on the question of increment that the whole proceeding of altering their attitude afterwards is almost as immoral as continuing this Debate into the early hours of the morning. It is absolutely impossible to prove that this Increment Duty is a moral duty. The whole justification given for it on the platforms of hon. Members opposite was that as it was the community that built up this increment it would be returned to them—would be returned to those who, by their energies, had created it. Now we find these duties are to be taken from these communities and sent to places like Ireland where there are no energies

  1651
  of the community. The money which is raised in the great English cities will go to far-distant parts of the country. In the town of Bournemouth there are now 80,000 inhabitants where a hundred years ago there were only half that number, and therefore you will understand how this question of increment affects that great community. The hon. Member for East Dorset (Captain Guest) will agree with me that all the increment which has accrued in those parts is not in any way due to the work of landlords. According to his doctrines it is the community which has built it up. At the recent election it was stated from a thousand platforms, and especially in that part of the country, that there would be no injustice to these great growing communities because that money, or at least half of it, would return to the people who had built up those communities. I understood that was the argument which first appealed to those Scotchmen who hatched this plan and got it adopted by the Government. How they can, with any consistency, go back to their constituencies now and tell the people that this money is not to be returned I cannot possibly see. There can only be one reason why the Government is taking this course in the early hours of the morning without any possibility of the public knowing what is going on, and that is that they are afraid the public should see their complete change of policy and breaking of pledges, and understand the full extent of their infamy. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent urban areas to remember when they go into the lobby on this occasion the pledges they gave on a thousand platforms.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think it is quite obvious to all of us why this Bill is still being continued under discussion, and why we have to discuss this Clause at this hour of the morning. It is because the Government dare not face the light of day on this question. The point before the Committee is the repeal of the Clause in the Finance Bill by which municipalities were given one half of these Land Duties, and the point, to my mind, is whether that repeal should be permanent or temporary. I have given a large amount of study to this subject for a considerable number of years. I seconded a Bill here in 1904, proposed by one of the present Members of the Government and supported by a great many Members on both sides of the House, and, I believe,
  1652
  Mr. Emmott, supported by yourself, and it was founded upon the principle that those who benefited by public works should pay the cost of them, and also upon the principle, which was equally true and equally important that the authorities which conferred a benefit should be the people who got the taxes. The taxes which were proposed on that occasion and several times before that were not exactly the same as the Land Taxes that were included in the last Budget. What was simply proposed in both cases was simply to alter the basis for local taxation. Both these differed from the principle of the taxes we are now considering, but the basis of both sets of taxes was the same. The allegation was that the site was improved in value by the efforts of somebody outside the actual owner of the site, and it was claimed that in consequence of the construction of roads, gas, water, parks, sewers, access, and other municipal amenities, the site value was improved, and that was the basis upon which it was contended that the owners of property should pay this tax. It was exactly upon that basis that it was contended that the municipalities and boroughs had done the work, and that they should be entitled to receive these taxes.
  I took a considerable part in the discussion of the different clauses of the Finance Bill, and I listened very carefully to the whole of the discussions in which I did not take part, and if there was one thing more than another which impressed itself upon my mind it was that the point which was distrusted in the Government proposals was that the Government was seeking to take over the whole of the Land Taxes and that was disapproved on both sides of the House. A large number of Liberal Members took that view strongly, and said, "You are doing the municipalities out of a source of revenue, and making it impossible for them in future years to alter the rating so as to get proper contributions from the people who ought to pay for these municipal amenities." What happened? A representation was made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he came and told us during the Debates what was taking place, and other Members told us of the Debates that were going on, and the representations that were made, and eventually a compromise was arranged, but not without many days of Debate and discussion, and not until there was a most formidable opposition to the Government

  1653
  from their own side of the House. That compromise was, "We will give you half. You shall have in the clauses of the Bill that the municipalities shall have half of these taxes." I believe that compromise was accepted in good faith by a large number of Members, particularly on the Government side of the House, who believed in the assurance which the Government gave, and they proceeded to vote for the Bill. I charge the Government now with deliberately breaking their promise, breaking their pledge, and breaking their word. The local authorities are the people who really ought to receive the whole of the taxes. I feel that the mere promise that has been made to us to-night that some words will be inserted in the Bill, that the repeal of this Clause will be made when Parliament shall so determine, is not worth much. Everything can be altered when Parliament so determines. It seems to me idle—I do not know whether the word I am going to use is Parliamentary or not—I would say it is most impudent to make this proposal to the House. Is it intended to make a mockery of us by offering something which means nothing at all? First of all we are asked to accept some alternative donation.
  We are told the Poor Law authorities are to be relieved from some claim that was going to be made upon them that they should contribute to old age pensions. What has that got to do with the municipalities? I have been a Member for many years now of one of the largest municipalities in the Kingdom, and I have taken an active part in its administration. We have nothing to do with the boards of guardians. The whole Poor Law system really ought to be a national affair. But we are seeking in this case for our own. I have only one further observation to make, and that is that the very simplest illustration will show anybody who is prepared to think about it that the way in which I am endeavouring to put it is right. You take a piece of barren land in the middle of Derbyshire or Argyllshire. It is valueless to-day, and was valueless fifty years ago, and will be valueless fifty years hence. Why? The State has done nothing for that piece of land; has done no more for it than for any other piece of land. What has been done, or may be done, to increase the value of the land? It is the neighbourhood. It is the amenities. It is the local energies, the local conditions, that have increased the value of the land. If it was the State that did it every piece of land would have
  1654
  equally increased in value. It is for the very reason that the value has to be ascribed to local effort, local conditions and local expenditure, that the local authorities are really entitled to the whole benefit of these taxes. It is a most important matter, and I am very sorry I am unable at this hour of the morning to adequately express what I feel about it, and I apologise to you and to the House for detaining you so long.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Whether the Committee quite realises it or not this Clause pledges the whole future of local taxation in this country, and the Amendment involves the whole principle of the Clause. Well, the Mover of the Amendment has made his appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary to the Treasury has made his answer. I do not know whether the Home Secretary knows of that answer. I do not know whether he endorses it. He has promised the words, the futility of which has been demonstrated, "until Parliament otherwise determines." We know, of course, that Parliament will always determine that the arrangement shall stand. But there is the second part of the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman. He pledges that there shall be a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the allocation of this money as between local authorities. There is no subject upon which there have been so many inquiries as local taxation. Since 1834 there have been dozens of Committees and Royal Commissions, and hardly one of their recommendations has ever been carried out. In the history of taxation there is no more discreditable chapter than that which deals with the question of local taxation. Grants have been made, not upon any principle, but merely to suit the party expediency of the moment.
  What I want to ask the Home Secretary is, "Is this Committee to be definitely instructed to arrange for a fair apportionment of the grants, the assigned revenues, under the new arrangement as between the local authorities of the country. "The difficulty is, really, to discuss this at this time. I do not want to labour the point, when, as we can see, Members are thoroughly weary and unable to—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Dozens of them have been asleep on the benches. I cannot forget the evidence of my own eyes. After all, there are great issues involved. My hon. Friend the Member in front of me

  1655
  brought forward the case of London. In London we pay one-fifth of the rates of the whole country. It has long been the whipping boy of local taxation; we have always suffered; London has always suffered. She is struck at now by the Government worse than ever before. Instead of getting relief we are incurring a great loss, and those parts which suffer most are the poorest parts. I should like to appeal to those below the Gangway, who speak for the working class, and ask them what they say of the new burdens that are going to be placed on the greatest working-class city in the world. I want to point out one or two of the reasons why London suffers. Of course, this disqualification of paupers for old age pensions has been removed, and the local authorities are to reap the benefit. But London gains much less than any other part of the country in that respect. According to the last report of the President of the Local Government Board, in London we have two in-door paupers to every one in receipt of out-door relief.
  In the country there is only one Indoor pauper for every two in receipt of out-door relief. It is the aged poor who have been in receipt of out-door relief who will take these pensions. That is one serious fact. There is another just as serious. I do not know why there should be scoffing below the Gangway at the poor of London, for whom I can speak. I represent the poorest part of the East End. London suffers most in the withdrawal of the Land Taxes. London, after all, is the place where there have been most arrears of local government to be made up. I have always been in favour of the taxation of land values for local purposes. I sat twenty years ago on a Committee which recommended it to this House. It is in London that we should gain most money from the duty on reversions, because in London the reversionary system has full play. The short leasehold system is the rule in London; it is even called the London system, as opposed to the feu system of Scotland and the chief rents of the North of England. We are sacrificing the whole of our future gains from the duty on reversions. It means more than the Secretary to the Treasury will allow. He knows very well, but will not disclose it. The Treasury is making a very good bargain. London is making a worse bargain at this time than it has ever made before. London has been the city of woe with respect to local taxation.
  1656
  We have had the worst of every arrangement made by the Imperial Exchequer. I hope I have not wearied the House in pointing this out. I have tried to discuss the matter without any party acrimony. I wanted to make a practical, not a polemical, speech. I ask for a pledge from the Home Secretary that the Departmental Committee shall have definite instructions to apportion the revenue fairly as between the local authorities, and especially to do justice to the special claims of the County of London. All local exchequers are hit but London hardest of all.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I feel very strongly on this matter, because I represent a borough where the rates are particularly high through no misfortune of the present local legislators. These rates have been raised to the extent of something like a penny owing to the diminution in the value of the licensed premises brought about by the People's Budget of 1909. And we now find that the borough is to be deprived of that sum of money which it was definitely promised by the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the proceeds of the Land Taxes. Under these circumstances I do feel that one is justified even at this hour in pressing the claims not only on behalf of the borough I represent, but on behalf of every urban authority in this country. I am not going to ask you to cast your minds back 100 years, but I am going to ask the House to cast their minds back to July, 1910, when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer met a deputation of the Association of Municipal Corporations. He there gave us, if I may say so, a fair example of those pledges which the Government know so well how to give before an election and how to break after the election. At the meeting of the deputation the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that the corporations of England would receive from the Treasury a sum of £600,000 per annum for improvements in roads. This is not perhaps the time to inquire whether the municipal authorities have received that sum; we shall have an opportunity of discussing that later. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that that year—1909–10—he would be able to hand over to the municipal authorities £250,000 in respect of half the Land Taxes which were due under that Budget. He thus pledged himself to hand over a quarter of a million of money in respect of the past year, and he distinctly

  1657
  told the deputation that the next year—1910–11—he estimated the yield of the Land Taxes would be at least double—that is £500,000 per annum. In spite of the definite pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are now asked to vote for a measure which will deprive the local authorities of every penny of the £500,000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised them only a few months ago. I would also remind the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told this deputation that this sum would far more than compensate them for any possible reduction in the revenue of local authorities which might result from depression in the rateable value of licensed premises. I can only say that if this proposal is passed it is one of the grossest breaches of public pledges ever given by a public representative to any public authority. [Interruption.] Hon. Members below the Gangway by their impertinent interruptions—
  The CHAIRMAN: I entirely deprecate these noises coming from below the Gangway. The language used by the hon. Member is quite unparliamentary.
  Earl WINTERTON: Are hon. Members below the Gangway, whatever their feelings may be, entitled to copy animals?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I will withdraw the word, but the Committee will agree that I had great provocation, and I do suggest to hon. Members below the Gangway that in attempting to imitate any speaker in this House they are bringing discredit to their party and to this House. What I was going to say when I was interrupted was that it is a matter of great regret that we have not present the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has given these promises broadcast during the last few years, and I say, without meaning any offence to the Secretary to the Treasury that he must perforce take his orders on these things, and whatever Amendment we propose, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no chance of getting them adopted. In view of the history of the question, in view of the fact that no less than three times have the Government brought in different proposals and in view of the fact that they are endeavouring to rush these important proposals through the House at this hour of the day, I say that the charge levelled against them the other day by the Leader of the Opposition is more than ever confirmed, namely, that they are embarking upon a campaign of fraud in the country and of coercion in this House.
  Captain CLIVE: Surely after the denunciations we have heard the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will withdraw the ridiculous Amendment, which he cannot seriously have supposed would give any satisfaction to hon. Members on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman declared that it was the intention of the Government not to withdraw these taxes permanently from the local authorities. On Tuesday last he said he wanted to make it perfectly clear, and he repeated the principles which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down when speaking in the Debate on the financial resolutions, namely, that while they could not say that the Bill was to be confined to the current year or next year, it was clear that it was not a permanent settlement. Now, when it came to an Amendment to make that perfectly clear they declined to accept it. To-night we have brought home to the Government a most astonishing crop of broken promises—it is a longer list than was ever brought home to any Government before them—I make it four. First of all they promised a full discussion of this Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Amendment.
  Captain CLIVE: I will certainly endeavour to do so. It must be admitted that the provocation we have had has been very great. By accepting this Amendment the Government have broken a pledge to meet the exigencies of the moment; It has been pointed out that the Clause as it stands is a breach of faith with the electorate, many of whom undoubtedly gave their votes to the present Government in consequence of the belief that half the Land Taxes were going in relief of rates, and a breach of faith with the Members of this House, many of whom would have put many more difficulties in the way of the Government had it been thought that this proposal would have been embodied in the Budget.
  7.0 A.M.
  It has been pointed out already how the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) declared that in his opinion the whole of the Land Taxes should go to the local authorities. Now it seems as if it is not the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are toeing the line but that the hon. and learned Member is toeing the line. The hon Member for Islington expressed the same view. He brought in an Amendment at the time the

  1659
  Budget was before the House proposing that the whole and not half of the Land Taxes should be given to the local authorities. The Government put in half in order to secure the passage of their Budget, and, having secured its passage, they now propose to repeal the provision absolutely.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry I was unable to hear the statement which the Financial Secretary made earlier on this Amendment. But I think the Government must feel that they have given ground for the disappointment felt by local authorities as to their present attitude on this matter. After all, if the local authorities did expect a great deal from these taxes and set great store by the promise, it is because the Government boasted so loudly as to what these taxes were going to be. Again and again we were told they were going to be an unfailing source of revenue increasing from year to year, ever growing and never receding. When you have told the country that, when you have told the municipalities that, and have offered to go shares, can you wonder they are disappointed when you say, "No, we will enjoy all the great increase which is to come and you will be satisfied with what you have at this moment. I am quite sure that never have the great municipalities, and especially those which have been particularly interested in this matter, been so disappointed as when they found that the tax which was, so to speak, invented by municipal reform, which was regarded by them as being essentially a municipal source of revenue springing up within the particular local community itself, and which therefore that particular local community was entitled to enjoy, never have they been so disappointed as when they found their ideas taken, their money filched away, and they themselves, after all the promises made and after the concession introduced in order to carry the Budget, now become law, deprived of even one penny of the revenue this taxation produces. What is the justification of the Government for doing this? That is really what I rose to ask the Committee to consider for one moment. It is, I think,
  an aspect of the question which has not been touched in the Debate so far.
  I understand the real plea of the Government is that as they are relieving the ratepayers of the charge of certain paupers by giving them the old age pension, therefore they are entitled to get a return for that, and instead of paying over this money to the ratepayers and then exacting other money from them towards the cost of old age pensions, they set off the one against the other, and make no cross payment. Is that what the Committee really want? Members who were in the House when the Old Age Pensions Bill was introduced, or those who remember the discussions before or since in the country, will, I think, agree that there was no point on which more stress was laid than that the new pensions should have nothing to do with the odium of pauperism. Suggestions were made in some quarters that pensions might be paid through the guardians. It was repeated by almost everybody in this House that they wanted the old age pensions to be wholly divorced from the odium of pauperism. Well, if that is so—and I do not think a single Member will dispute it—what are you doing now? You are in fact setting off the relief the guardians may get against the old age pensions You are, in fact, taking a contribution from the ratepayers just as much as if you charged it directly on the Poor Kate. You are bringing the old age pensions into exactly that connection with the Poor Rate that you wished to avoid. I hope, even at this moment, the Government will return to their earlier intentions and, at least, give half of this to the local authorities. They ought to have given the whole. If they had I think they might have arranged their taxes much more simply, with much less hardship to individuals and with more benefit to the community and to themselves. If they will not give the whole, I hope they will give the half, as they promised.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 132.

  Division No. 59.]

  AYES.

  [7.0 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Armitage, Robert

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Adamson, William

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barton, William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

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

  Brace, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hinds, John

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Cawley, H T. (Lancs., Haywood)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  John, Edward Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Johnson, William

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Clough, William

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Richards, Thomas

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robinson, Sidney

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowlands, James

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  St. Maur, Harold

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Eiverston, Harold

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Falconer, James

  Mathias, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Ffrench, Peter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Field, William

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin, George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Morrell, Philip

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Glanville, Harold James

  Munro, Robert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Goldstone, Frank

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Wandle, G. J.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Webb, H.

  Gulland, John William

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Grady, James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Malley, William

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Dudley Ward.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Butcher, John George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Fell, Arthur

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Cassel, Felix

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fleming, Valentine

  Barnston, Harry

  Cator, John

  Foster, Philip Staveley

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gordon, John

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Grant, J. A.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bigland, Alfred

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Gretton, John

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hall, D. B (Isle of Wight)

  Boyton, James

  Crichton-Stuart, Rt. Hon. Lord Ninian

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Croft, Henry Page

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  1662

  1663

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Nield, Herbert

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Swift, Rigby

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Ormsby-Gore-Hon. William

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Touche, George Alexander

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Kerry, Earl of

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Quilter, William Eley C.

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)

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

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ronaldshay, Earl of.

  Winterton, Earl

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Moore, William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Younger, George

  Neville, Reginald J. N

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Stanier, Beville

  Question, "That the words, cease to have effect, stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Remaining words omitted.
  Question put, "That the words, 'not have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirteen,' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 199.

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES.

  [7.20 a.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, James Augustus

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Gretton, John

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Home, Wm, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Spear, John Ward

  Boy ton, James

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, John George

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Sutton, John E.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Hunts, Ramsey)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cator, John

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Moore, William

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Worthington, Evans, L.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Younger, George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Fleming, Valentine

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. L. Hardy and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hackett, John

  O'Malley, William

  Adamson, William

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Armitage, Robert

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Barton, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Pointer, Joseph

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hinds, John

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Brace, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Horns, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Burks, E. Haviland.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Johnson, William

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Clough, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Law, Hugh A.

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Leach, Charles

  Rowlands, James

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  St. Maur, Harold

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  MacGhee, Richard

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridge)

  Dillon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Doris, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Mathias, Richard

  Summers, James Woolley

  Elverston, Harold

  Meagher, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Toulmi, George

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Falconer, James

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, John J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Walters, John Tudor

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Morrell, Philip

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Munro, Robert

  Wardle, George J.

  Field, William

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Webb, H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Neilson, Francis

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Connor, John (Klidare, N.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Gulland, John William

  O'Grady, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. William Jones.

  Mr. HOBHOUSE: For the purpose of keeping the undertaking I gave my hon. Friend earlier in the proceedings, I beg to move in place of the words left out to insert the words, "to be suspended in its operation as from the day of the principal Act until Parliament will otherwise determine."
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: You were good enough, Mr. Chairman, to say that the Amendment I had put down was in order.
  1666
  With the addition of one or two words it-would meet the case.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is now out of order, as I explained to the hon. Member privately. I stated to the Committee previously that it was in order on the technical point of interception, but it seems to me we have now decided the question which the Amendment raises. We have decided that

  1667
  part of the money should not go to local authorities. I do not see how we can now decide that the whole should go to them. That is the reason the Amendment is out of order.
  Mr. GUINNESS: It seems to me that the Amendment of the Government is worth nothing at all. It is a mere mockery. We have had far more definite pledges in the Debates on the Finance Bill of 1909. I have taken the trouble to look it up, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged himself in the most definite way that this money would be put aside and earmarked and only spent for the purposes of the focal authorities. His difficulty was that he could not allocate it to any fund for the local authorities, but they regarded it as being as good as paid over to them. He got the tax by the methods of quicklime instead of the methods of butter. He said he would submit the matter to a Departmental Committee, but we can measure the value of that by the preference of the promises with regard to local taxation. We know what that meant in the past. We cannot expect that the Departmental Committee will have more attention given to its Report than the Report of the Royal Commission received. That Commission was appointed by a Liberal Government seventeen years ago, and they took no notice of its Report, and they will take no more notice of the less important Departmental Committee. There is one point which, I think, has not been mentioned. The Government are taking credit for a grant of money which is not made to the rating authorities at all. The Government say that because they are helping the boards of guardians towards the cost of paupers that therefore the county and borough councils are to forego this relief to which they are entitled under the Act of 1909.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question has been settled. The question now is whether these words are to be inserted or not.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I can see that it is impossible at present for the Government to state the details. They cannot obviously say now whether the money is to be allocated on a rateable value or on population. We do not ask that they should settle that for the moment, but we do say that surely to put these words in is worse than nothing. It will, perhaps, throw dust into the eyes of the local authorities, who still have some faith in Government promises. To that extent it will discredit the agitation
  1668
  which would otherwise be inevitable against the very sharp practice of the Government in taking back that money which practically had been given to the local authorities already. The land values have not been created by the Government; they have been created by the local authorities. Already the local authorities are getting less benefit than that to which they are strictly entitled, because they would have shared the land values not only with the urban communities who created them, but with the whole of the local authorities throughout the country, even those who had nothing to do with the increased value of urban sites. It seems to me that the compromise proposed on this side of the House is a very generous one on the part of local authorities.
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed on that. That matter is not before the Committee. There is a blank in the Bill, and it is proposed to fill that with the words proposed by the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member keeps referring to discussions now closed by the decision of the Committee. He hungers for the old words, but that matter is now settled.
  Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: These words are absolutely useless; they mean nothing whatever. Every Act of Parliament is binding "until Parliament otherwise determines." For the Government to contend that in this way they are in any sense fulfilling their pledges to-local authorities is mere nonsense. I represent one of the largest boroughs in the kingdom, and what I want to say is this: that they, in common with all other boroughs and urban authorities, have expected to receive considerable benefit from these taxes. They have had every reason to expect that benefit. Less than a year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, receiving a deputation from the Association of Municipal Corporations, used these words: "We have definitely allocated half the amount towards local expenditure." What is the meaning of the word "definitely"? He meant that he was not going back upon it. Surely the Government must realise that great expectations have been built up? Then, a little later, on 27th September of last year, when he came to the question of allocating this money, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in this House that he did not see his way to provide a scheme of allocation immediately, but he added: "I do not think this will

  1669
  make any serious difference in regard to the localities." And what has been the difference? Why, the most serious of all differences. Money is now to be taken away "until Parliament otherwise determines." I think it is an absolute mockery to insert words of that sort. It would have been better to have left the Clause as it was. It is simply throwing dust into the eyes of the municipalities; it is nothing but window-dressing. I say, in fact, that we do not thank the Government in the least for these words. But we claim this: if there are any Land Taxes at all the only fair justification for them is this—that local improvements may be paid for by the special tax upon land in the neighbourhood. And not half of them, but all of them should be paid thus, and not when Parliament further determines, but immediately.
  Mr. BUTCHER: I do hope that the Government will really reconsider this. These words are not merely futile, but unmeaning; they are, I think, deliberately, misleading and delusive. They are intended to produce an impression which does not exist, namely, that this is a mere temporary measure. You have told us several times to-night that this deprivation of money from the borough councils and county councils is temporary. Then why do not you introduce words in the Bill that say so? May I suggest to the Government an alteration if they will not take this straightforward and honest course? Let them try a preamble. Might I suggest the terms of the preamble?
  "Whereas it is intended at some future time, which this House is unable to name, to hand over half these proceeds of the Land Taxes to the local authorities, but such process cannot immediately be brought into operation."
  Really, if you ask us to put in words like "until Parliament otherwise determines," it is perfectly ridiculous. If the Government are really in earnest, if they mean that this taking away of money is only temporary, why not say so in fair and honest terms.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I desire to protest against the Amendment. The Home Secretary has at least been consistent in going against the explicit statements by his colleagues once again. There
  was a more or less explicit statement in the first place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not anticipate a searching inquiry and a rearrangement of our local and central finance. That has been anticipated by the Clause in its first form. In the second place, he said he would deal with it immediately. That has been flatly contradicted by the suspensory Amendment. The promise was perfectly explicit. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is perfectly clear that local and Imperial finance has got to be dealt with in a very thorough, and I should say, a very searching way." It is a very thorough and searching way in which Clause 10 deals with it. The right hon. Gentleman went on, "And I think it would be a mistake to anticipate the lines on which they will be dealt with, and on which we propose to legislate by including in this Bill anything in the nature of a complete and full allocation of the funds." I have seen a great many people interested in the matter, and they are all opposed to defining the lines of the apportionment; they want it to be dealt with at a future date." The right hon. Gentleman deprecated any anticipation. That anticipation has been carried out in the Clause as it stood. He led us all to believe that it would be dealt with soon, and now this Amendment means that it is to be postponed in perpetuity, or until such time as the Government think fit to determine. I wish to ask the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) whether he proposes to support the Government on this Clause, and whether his colleagues are also willing to support either the Clause or the Government's Amendment. The hon. Member has declared that he thought the whole amount ought to be handed back to the local authorities. Does he propose to support the Government in an Amendment which carries out a principle exactly the contrary of what he himself has supported in this House?
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES.

  [7.45 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Barton, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, Robert

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

  Adamson, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hayward, Evan

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Brace, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hinds, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H W.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Johnson, William

  Radford, George Heynes

  Clough, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clynes, John R.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Robinson, Sydney

  Delany, William

  Leach, Charles

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, James

  Dillon, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  St. Maur, Harold

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Dully, William J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Elverston, Harold

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. I)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mathias, Richard

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Summers, James Woolley

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ffrench, Peter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, George

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Walters, John Tudor

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Wardle, George J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Webb, H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Whyte, A. F.

  Gulland, John William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Grady, James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

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

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Illingworth.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Croft, Henry Page

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Astor, Waldorf

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Butcher, John George (York)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Fell, Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cassel, Fells

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Barnston, Harry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Cator, John

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Gordon, John

  Bennett-Galdney, Francis

  Clyde, James Avon

  Grant, James Augustus

  Bigland, Alfred

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bird, Alfred

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Boyton, James

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  1672

  1673

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Nield, Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Swift, Rigby

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Kerry, Earl of

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

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

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

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Clauds

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Winterton, Earl

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Royds, Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Moore, William

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Younger, George

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Spear, John Ward

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Stanier, Beville

  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 62.]

  AYES.

  [7.54 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Adamson, William

  Falconer, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Armitage, Robert

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  MacGhee, Richard

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Field, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barton, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mathias, Richard

  Brace, William.

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Gulland, John William

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hackett, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leods, West)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, Robert

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hayward, Evan

  Neilson, Francis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Clynes, John R.

  Henry, Sir Charles Solomon

  O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Dowd, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  O'Grady, James

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Malley, William

  Crumley, Patrick

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Johnson, William

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Delany, William

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Doris, William

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

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pointer, Joseph

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Contral)

  Elverston, Harold

  Law, Hugh A.

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Leach, Charles

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Radford, George Heynes

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Wardie, George J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Webb, H.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Richards, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Rowlands, James

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. W. Jones.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Grant, J. A.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rutherford, W (Liverpool, W. Darby)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hill-Wood, S.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bird, Alfred

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyton, James

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Spear, John ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R

  Stanier, Seville

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Butcher, John George

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Cassel, Felix

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cator, John

  Lang, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Moore, William

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Mr. CHURCHILLclaimed that the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," be now put.
  Question put, "That the Question, 'that
  the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 130.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES.

  [8.0 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Bentham, G. J

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Black, Arthur W.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Adamson, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Brace, William

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Armitage, R.

  Brady, P. J.

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Barren, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Barton, William

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Clough, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Johnson, W.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Keating, M.

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Delany, William

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dillon, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Doris, W.

  Law, Hugh A.

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Duncans, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Leach, Charles

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Randnor)

  Lundon, T.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Elverston, H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rowlands, James

  Essex, Richard Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  St. Maur, Harold

  Falconer, J.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mathias, Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Summers, James Woolley

  Glanville, H. J.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Sutton, John E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morgan, George Hay

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Toulmin, George

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

  Munro, R.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Gulland, John W.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hackett, J.

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wardle, George J.

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Webb, H.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Dowd, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Grady, James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Williams, P. (Middlesborough)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey M.

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wm. Jones.

  Hughes, S. L.

  Pearson, Weetman H. M.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gordon, J.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grant, J. A.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cator, John

  Greene, W. R.

  Baird, J. L.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Baring, Captain Hon. G. V.

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Barlow, Montague (Salfo'rd, South)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Barnston, H.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hardy, Laurence

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh hicks

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hohler, G. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bigland, Alfred

  Croft, H. P.

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Bird, A.

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Boyton, J.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Goldsmith, Frank

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

  1678

  1679

  Long, Ht. Hon. Walter

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Mackinder, H J.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Moore, William

  Rice, Hon. W. F.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Welgall, Capt. A. G.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

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

  Newman, John R. P.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Winterton, Earl

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Nield, Herbert

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Spear, John Ward

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Stanier, Beville.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

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

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Younger, George

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Swift, Rigby

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E. Talbot and Lord Balcarres.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 129.

  Division No. 64.]

  AYES.

  [8.10 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mathias, Richard

  Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Adamson, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Armitage, Robert

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Guest, Major (Pembroke)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Barton, William

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Guiland, John William

  Munro, Robert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hackett, John

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Neilson, Francis

  Brace, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P (Liverpool, Scot'd.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Grady, James

  Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Malley, William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Clough, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pearce, Robert (Leek)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Johnson, William

  Pine, Duncan V.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crawshay-Williams, E.

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Jones, Wm. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Delany, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Radford, George Heynes

  Dillon, John

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Doris, William

  Lambert, George (South Molton)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Law, Hugh Alexander

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards, A. C. (Glam., E.)

  Leach, Charles

  Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rendall, Atheistan

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richards, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lundon, Thomas

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Elverston, Harold

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robinson, Sidney

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowlands, James

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  St. Maur, Harold

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

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Bridgeton)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

  Verney, Sir H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Simon, Sir John Alluebrook

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon Trent)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Summers, James Woolley

  Webb, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Benn and Mr. Soares.

  Sutton, John E.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pole-Carew, Sir Reginald

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, James Augustus

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

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

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Rothschild, Lionel D.

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Royds, Edmund

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Salter, Arthur Clavel

  Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bird, Alfred

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Stanier, Beville

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, James

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Touche, George A.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cator, John

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walker, Col. W. H.

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

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

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Moore, William

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

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Clyde, James Avon

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mount, William Arthur

  Winterton, Earl

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Tnanet)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Yate, Col. Charles Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Younger, George

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  CLAUSE 11.—(Payment to Local Taxation Account of fixed sum, in respect of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties.)
  (1) The sum to be paid in respect of the local taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties into the Local Taxation Account, and the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account, and the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account respectively, under Sub-section (2) of Section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907, shall, in the current and every subsequent financial year, instead of being a sum equal to the amount which would have been paid as the proceeds of those duties if that Act had not passed, be a sum equal to the amount of the English, Scottish, and Irish shares respectively of the proceeds of those duties
  1682
  during the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine.
  (2) There shall in addition be paid into each of the said Local Taxation Accounts during the current financial year out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, any amount by which the sum payable into that account in respect of the proceeds of the local taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties in the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and ten fell short of the sum which would have been so payable if this Act had been in force during that year, and any additional amount so paid into any Local Taxation Account shall be

  1683
  distributed and dealt with as if it were an addition to the sum paid into that account in respect of the local taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think it would be useless to renew the appeals which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made earlier in the proceedings to the Government to keep their pledges. The time for that has gone by. Their pledges are broken. They have acted throughout this sitting in defiance of the word which they offered across the floor of the House, and which was accepted by their opponents. That is a painful thing under any circumstances, but it is a very bad thing for the House of Commons, which, as we all know, depends upon the honourable keeping of such pledges in the business transactions which must occur. An hon. and gallant Gentleman makes an observation. Does he desire me to quote again the words of the Prime Minister, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the Chancellor of the Duchy? He was probably sleeping when I quoted them before.
  Captain CRAIG: On a point of Order. If it is any assistance to you, Mr. Chairman, and you will say the word, I shall put the whole Nationalist party out of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member has put to me a point of Order, but it would make this a spot of disorder.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman expects the Opposition to keep arrangements made across the floor of the House when the Government breaks such arrangements. We are coming very near another sitting in regard to which an arrangement was made. Do you expect the arrangement to be kept when you have broken your own? You will have only yourselves to blame if it is broken. It is because the House has sat now for seventeen and a half hours, and because we are coming very near the hour for another sitting, that I now beg leave to renew the Motion that you report Progress. It is quite intolerable that the House should be asked to discuss a measure of this importance under these conditions. The Home Secretary said earlier in the day that he would treat this Bill as the Bill of last Session. Does he know what the Bill of last Session was? I think there are not less than eight clauses in the Bill which did not appear in the Bill of last Session. One of my hon. Friends
  1684
  tells me, though I have been unable to get a copy of the Bill to make certain, that there were only five clauses in the Bill of last Session. And yet, on the pretence that this Bill was introduced last Session the Home Secretary considers that discussion is unnecessary now, and that the Bill can be rushed through in a single night. It is an outrage on Parliamentary procedure, a gross breach of faith—a breach of faith unparalleled in the long traditions of this House. As a protest on both grounds I propose, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  [The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley) in the Chair.]
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to repeat, in the broad light of day, the excited charges which were flung promiscuously and hastily across the floor of the House from various quarters in the small hours of the morning. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman has taken that course, I will, in the fewest possible sentences, say that we repudiate altogether the charge. We have not swerved or departed in any respect from the settled and fixed plan, or from the time-table on which the Government have been proceeding. It was the full expectation of the Prime Minister that we should make, not only the progress which we propose to make to-day, but that we should begin the discussion of the new clauses. What did the right hon. Gentleman say at question time? I have taken the utmost precaution in getting his exact words. He said: "In view of the very large number of new clauses—"
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is the official report?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Hansard is not out yet. I have got this from the Central News. If afterwards it is proved to be inaccurate, then the arguments based on it will be subjected to certain revisions. This is what the Prime Minister said. This is the pledge: "In view of the very large number of new clauses put down, I hope the Committee will be prepared to sit a little later to-night." That is the clearest possible warning and indication that the Government intended to make substantial progress in the financial business they had in hand, and it was a warning couched as such warnings are in non-provocative terms that we should have to undergo and face the exertions of an all

  1685
  night sitting. But even if those words which I have read are held not accurately taken to foreshadow the couse whe have taken. I am certain I have only carried out the purpose and intention of the Prime Minister. That being so, how utterly absurd it is to suppose that they inhibit us from having taken this course. It is obvious and clear that the Prime Minister fully intended and contemplated our taking the course which we have taken to night, but he did not contemplate and could not foresee the great length of time which has been consumed on the discussion of the earlier clauses and on repeated motions for postponements. No one can say that this was not the settled plan on which the Government have been proceeding. It was fully in the intention of the Prime Minister, in calculating the time spent on this Bill already and the time left out of the six-and-a-half days which we all along stated would be allocated to the discussion of this measure—
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Nothing was said about six-and-a-half days when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised us ample time for discussion.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Weeks ago the Government announced that six-and-a-half days was the time that they allocated. On 10th February, exactly a month ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said: "We have to prosecute the Bill through its various stages, and we propose to give for this purpose six-and-a-half days." That statement was accepted without the slightest challenge by anyone on that side of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman makes these charges I am bound to tell him that they leave us without any prick of conscience, and if they consider that they have a grievance because of the course which has been taken and in order to redress that grievance they depart from an undertaking they have made, and for which they have received value in the shape of extra time for discussion, I say that the complaint which we shall urge against them will be a complaint of greater body and substance than any which they can vociferate against us. I have been forced to address myself to that serious charge made with an extraordinary profusion of harsh language by various speakers on the other side of the House. Let me say one word on the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made, the Motion that we report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. Apart altogether from
  1686
  this particular wrangle about which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself in his most disagreeable form, the Debate especially in its later hours has been an exceedingly good Debate, and highly creditable to the House of Commons. I listened to a great deal of it, and my hon. Friends on this bench, who heard both the beginning and the latter part, tell me there is no doubt whatever that the discussion proceeding at five and six o'clock this morning was better than the discussion proceeding at five o'clock yesterday afternoon.
  Earl WINTERTON: Then why did you closure it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The progress made has been good, but not unreasonable. If we were to agree to the Motion to report Progress now we should spoil a good night's work I therefore must point out that the clauses which remain to be discussed are not matters in which any great questions of substance can arise, and unless the Committee were vexed and desired to assume a very combative attitude upon them I have no doubt that could easily and speedily be disposed of. At any rate, we are bound to continue. I have now the OFFICIAL REPORT put in my hands as to what the Prime Minister said. The Report runs as follows:—
  "Mr. Balfour: There is no idea, of course, of the Committee stage finishing to-night?
  The Prime Minister: No, of course, in view of the very large number of Amendments and new Clauses, but I hope the Committee will be prepared to sit a little late; but there is no idea of finishing the Committee stage to-night."
  We have no chance or prospect of finishing to-night, and the greater part of our work still remains to be discharged. I regret very much to have to press such exertions upon the Committee, but I am sure everyone will agree that, having reached so far, we ought to arrive at a much more convenient stopping place.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman's repudiation carried no weight whatever, especially as he read out the specific undertaking given by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. His bombastic utterances at 8.30 do not in the least excuse the gross error of judgment he committed at twelve o'clock last night. The right hon. Gentleman has apparently several conceptions of what a pledge means. If a pledge is made to a section of his followers behind him it means one thing, and is to be honourably discharged the next minute; but if it is made across the floor of the House and the right hon.

  1687
  Gentleman is assured by the Patronage Secretary that he has a majority at his back, that pledge means nothing whatsoever. The right hon. Gentleman will have little cause to look back to the first day in which he has led the House with feelings of pride, and if his eye is fixed on the place where he is now sitting, his chance of gaining that place is more remote than ever it was. If the right hon. Gentleman—and he has a section of the coalition with him—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we have had these speeches a good many times. I must request the Noble Lord to address himself to the present Motion, and find some new arguments in support of it.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I must bow to your ruling, Sir, but I was answering the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made. We have discussed this measure from four o'clock yesterday afternoon, and from the words of the Prime Minister, which the right hon. Gentleman read, it is obvious that he had no intention that we should sit here until this time.
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I know the Prime Minister's mind on this matter, and he had every expectation that we should have an all-night sitting.
  Earl WINTERTON: Why did he not say so?
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I hardly think the Prime Minister would thank the Patronage Secretary for the definition he has been good enough to give of his words. It is true we have passed one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. We have been called upon to discuss a measure closely affecting the local authorities of the country at a time when the Press were absent—that portion of the community which usually appeals to the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House. They were absent when the most important part of the Debate was carried on. The right hon. Gentleman has himself said that the Debate was of a very high order, and yet no portion of that Debate—or, at any rate, no correct report of the Debate—will reach our constituents. In adopting this course the right hon. Gentleman is prostituting the traditions of this House. As a protest against the position which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up as Leader of the House—a position which he will never keep—I support the Motion.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: I desire to remind the Home Secretary of what occurred a little earlier in the Session. He has used some very brave words about a pledge that was given. Not many weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was here, he was challenged as to the words of a pledge, and his reply followed the highest Parliamentary morality. He said it was not the pledge he intended to give, but if the Opposition understood it to be different he would certainly give way. That, Sir, was maintaining Parliamentary honour, and I commend the example to the Home Secretary.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I only intend to address myself, strictly in order, to one or two of the remarks that have fallen from the Home Secretary. In the first place it is not a question so much—
  Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the continued disorderly interruptions by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. J. Ward) and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh). They have carried on in a manner to render all sensible Debate impossible. [Interruption] The Patronage Secretary is very much mistaken—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the Noble Lord address the Chair?
  Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I was about to. The Government having consented to be quiet for a moment, I will put my point of Order. I desire to ask you whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent and the hon. Member for South Down to keep up a continuous fire of impertinent interruptions?
  Mr. LEIF JONES: On a point of Order. Is the word "impertinent" in order?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not an unparliamentary word.
  Mr. WALTER REA: Has not the word impertinent been ruled to be an unparliamentary word during this current sitting?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was not the ruling of the Chairman to the effect that it was unparliamentary to call a Member of this House impertinent; but has not saying a statement was irrelevant or impertinent been repeatedly ruled in order?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a fact that a distinction was drawn by the Chairman of Committees in regard to the sense in which the word impertinent might be

  1689
  used? That the sense of the word meaning rude was unparliamentary, but in the sense in which it was used by the Noble Lord was not unparliamentary.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not rule the expression as being out of order. I am sure the Noble Lord used it in its classical sense. As to the point of order raised by the Noble Lord, I would once more appeal to the House to leave to the Chair the power the House has reposed in the Chair, and which is not an easy one after all.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: On the point of Order, as the Noble Lord drew my name into this matter, I may say that whether he used the word in a classical sense or not is a matter of indifference to me. Considering his record, I regard the abuse of the Noble Lord as the highest compliment.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Home Secretary said that the plan of the Prime Minister had been understood by Members of the Opposition and that that was the reason— [Interruption.] I wonder if I may appeal to you, Mr. Whitley, for a little order. The Home Secretary stated that his reason for going on with the Debate last night and this morning was because the plan of the Prime Minister was well known on the Opposition benches. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman intended it to be so, but that was in flagrant contradiction of the actual facts. There is no question whatever that a large number of Members on these benches are genuinely interested in some of the financial questions—[Some interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke again says "Hear, hear."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is rather disregarding my ruling in reviving incidents which I hoped were done with.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will endeavour to keep strictly to the point under discussion, but I hope you will help Members on this side of the House to be saved from interruptions.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will leave it to me I can assure him I will.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Thank you. The point was really this, that the following out of the plan as the Prime Minister
  1690
  intended was justified by the Home Secretary on the ground that it was understood by Members of the Opposition. Whether stated willingly or not, that is flagrantly in opposition to the actual facts. There are Members on this side who have a genuine interest in some of these questions of local finance who left the House on the genuine understanding that this Debate was not going to be prolonged beyond a comparatively early hour, and who, for that reason, have been debarred from taking any part in it. No one in this House would ever accuse the Prime Minister for a single second of ever withdrawing from any pledge he had given. The Prime Minister is always so fair, so far as the time of the House is concerned, that when his word has been misunderstood by this side of the House he has been willing to give way to the Opposition. I am sure that had the Prime Minister been here and understood that Members on this side of the House genuinely misunderstood the nature of the undertaking, he would have conceded to them their perfectly legitimate demand. Our quarrel with the Home Secretary is that although he has followed the letter of the Prime Minister's plan, at any rate he has grossly discredited its spirit by the manner in which he has treated this side of the House. The Home Secretary has stated that now the light of day has come in we might be led to consider facts apart from any exaggeration. May we ask the Home Secretary to carry out the same process in his own mind and consider the facts apart from any exaggeration. Did that mean till twelve or one o'clock or nine o'clock in the morning? The Home Secretary has said that the reason for refusing to report progress was the repeated postponements and delays in discussing the Clauses on this side of the House. May we remind him that had he shown something of the temper of the learned Solicitor-General earlier in the evening—I quite agree it is probably incapacity on the part of the Home Secretary to behave for one minute like the Solicitor-General did—but, at any rate, the difference in the effect and the amount of progress has been quite clear. The number of Clauses that were got through in a comparatively short time earlier in the sitting was out of all proportion to the progress made since. The rate of that progress and the character of the Debate has been due to nothing whatever but the way in which we have been treated by the gentleman who is now leading the House. He said he has refused to agree to report progress

  1691
  and continued to sit till morning because it was the settled policy of the Government. It is not the policy of the Government which should rule the present case; it is the promise of the Government to the Opposition. If there ever was a thoroughly bad handling of the finances of the country it has been the way in which it has been treated in this Revenue Bill during to-night. I do not know whether the Home Secretary thinks that by continuing the Debate he has afforded anything like a good example of what we are to expect from the new regime of
  politics under his guidance, or of what we are to expect when this House, under the Parliament Bill, is to have absolutely uncontrolled finance, and we shall have a repetition of this ill-considered passing of important clauses.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, that "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 121.

  Division No. 65.]

  AYES.

  [8.55 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goldstone, Frank

  Neilson, Francis

  Adamson, William

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Armitage, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scotland)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Dowd, John

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Grady, James

  Barton, William

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haworth, Arthur A.

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

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hinds, John

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

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Hey wood)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Chancellor, Henry George

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Johnson, William

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Lei) Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Clynes, John R.

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

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Richards, Thomas

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Law, Hugh A.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Delany, William

  Lawsen, Sir W.(Cumb'rrnd., Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robinson, Sidney

  Doris, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rowlands, James

  Edwards, Allen Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  MacGhee, Richard

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Elverston, Harold

  M'Callum, John M.

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Mathias, Richard

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Falconer, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Sutton, John E.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Tannant, Harold John

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Toulmin, George

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Uro, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Munro, Robert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Glanville, Harold James

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Webb, H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Soares.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyton, James

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanier, Beville

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Butcher, John George

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile End)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cator, John

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Weigall, Capt A. G.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Moore, William

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

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

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Winterton, Earl

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nield, Herbert

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. H. W. Forster and Lord E. Talbot.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 201.

  Division No. 66.]

  AYES.

  [9.0 a.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

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

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clyde, James Avon

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Barnston, Harry

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Grenwich)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bennett Goldney, Francis

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Bigland, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Bird, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Boyton, James

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Malcolm, Ian

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Gordon, John

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Grant, J. A.

  Moore, William

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Mount, William Archer

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Cator, John

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Royds, Edmund

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Nield, Herbert

  Rutherford, William (West Derby)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

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

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Spear, John Ward

  Winterton, Earl

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Stanier, Beville

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Stewart, Gershom

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Touche, George Alexander

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Neilson, Francis

  Adamson, William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Gulland, John William

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hockett, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Grady, James

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmtworth, R. Leicester

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

  Barton, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Malley, William

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayward, Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

  Brigg, Sir John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hinds, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs-, Haywood)

  Johnson, William

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, G. H.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Leach, Charles

  Robinson, Sydney

  Dawes, J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Logan, John William

  Rowlands, James

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  St. Maur, Harold

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  MacGhee, Richard

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Elverston, Harold

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Mathias, Richard

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Meagher, Michael

  Summers, James Woolley

  Falconer, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Toulmin, George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, J. J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Field,. William

  Morgan, George Hay

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Morrell, Philip

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Munro, Robert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Wardle, G. J.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  1696

  1697

  Webb, H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Soares.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I be allowed to move that the Clause be postponed?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I could only allow a few words in explanation of that suggestion.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish to point out that this Clause covers a good deal of important and contentious matter. I will mention one or two things which are contained in it. There is the whole connection between the consumption of whisky and the efficiency of higher education, which comes under this Clause. That raises, of course, many interesting topics both as to the benefits of education and the benefits of the consumption of whisky, and also as to the reasons why the consumption has diminished, and thereby education has suffered. Then there is the whole connection between the central exchequer and the finance of Scotland and Ireland. Circumstances looming on the horizon make that question a matter of great interest. Then there is the principle of stereotyping grants upon the standard of one particular year. That comes in also on the first Sub-section. Lastly, there is the question of the relative merits of the interception of local duties for local taxation account and payment being made out of the Consolidated Fund. There are six or seven topics of primary interest, and I do submit that it would be better to run through Clauses 12, 13, and 14. Then perhaps the Government will consent to putting off Clause 11, which is of much more complication. So we might end in comparative harmony, though not without a sense of bitterness and injustice.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The bon. Gentleman has asked us to postpone this Clause 11. I am willing to admit frankly that there are more points of substance in Clause 11 than in the other three clauses. I welcome very much the note in his remarks, and I should be very anxious, indeed, to relieve the House from the heavy labours they have endured so long. If it would meet the view of bon. Gentlemen opposite, I would assent to the postponing of Clause 11 on the understanding that the other three clauses were disposed of in a reasonable time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I made no offer whatever. I am not authorised to do so. But I do suggest that it would be for the general convenience that there should be this postponement.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I think the hon. Member has forgotten the former arguments addressed by his Friends to the Committee. When we approached Clause 10 we were told that that was the important Clause, and that if the Government would postpone the consideration of that, the remainder was not of importance. Now the same argument is used in regard to Clause 11. I am driven to the conclusion that there is not as much sincerity in his remarks as he would suggest.
  Mr. CHURCHILLrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 125.

  Division No. 67.]

  AYES.

  [9.15 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Crawthay-Williams, Eliot

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, John Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burnt, Rt. Hen. John

  Delany, William

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Armitage, Robert

  Byles, Wiliam Pollard

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

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Doris, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Fredk. (Prestwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barton, William

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clough, William

  Elverston, Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wrexford, N.)

  Brace, William

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Falconer, James

  Brigg, Sir John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacGhee, Richard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Field, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Mathias, Richard

  Robinson, Sydney

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meagher, Michael

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Rowlands, James

  Hackett, John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  St. Maur, Harold

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Mooney, John J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, George Hay

  Schwann, Sir Charles E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morrell, Philip

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Munro, Robert

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Neilson, Francis

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Hayward, Evan

  Nolan, Joseph

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sutton, John E.

  Hinds, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Grady, James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hudson, Walter

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

  Toulmin, George

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Malley, William

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Johnson, William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tidvil)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jones, Leif Stratton (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Webb, H.

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Law, Hugh A (Donegal, W.)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Leach, Charles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Logan, John William

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Lundon, Thomas

  Raffan, peter Wilson

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Raphael, Herbert Henry

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Astor, Waldorf

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Baird, J. L.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Barnston, Harry

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Barrie, Hugh T. (Londonderry)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Moore, William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Morrison-Bill, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Mount, William Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gordon, John

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Grant, J. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Bird, Alfred

  Greene, W. R

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Boscawn, Sackville T. Griffith.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Boyton, James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Nield, Herbert

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hambro, Angus Vaidemar

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

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

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Cassel, Felix

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Cator, John

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wor'cr.)

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Pryce-Jones. Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Kerry, Earl of

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Knight, Capt Erie Ayshford

  Royds, Edmund

  1700

  1701

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Touche, George Alexander

  Wood, Hon. E. F. G. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Spear, John Ward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Yate, Col. C. E

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Courthope.

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be postponed."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 211.

  Division No. 68.]

  AYES.

  [9.25 a.m.

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gordon, John

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Grant, J. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barnston, H.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hardy, Laurence

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, Alfred

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyton, James

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Spear, John Ward

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cator, John

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wore.)

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Touche, George Alexander

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Mackinder, Halford J

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Clyde, James Avon

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Moore, William

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Morrison-Boll, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Winterton, Earl

  Doughty, Sir George

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr. Courthope and Mr. S. Roberts.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Burke, E. Haviland.

  Delany, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Armitage, Robert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dillon, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Doris, William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Duffy, William J.

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Barton, William

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Clough, William

  Eli bank, Rt. Hen. Master of

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clynes, John R.

  Elverston, Harold

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Brace, William

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Falconer, James

  Brigg, Sir John

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Richards, Thomas

  Field, William

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Marks, George Croydon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mathias, Richard

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rowlands, James

  Hackett, John

  Mooney, John J.

  St. Maur, Harold

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Morrell, Philip

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Munro, Robert

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Needham, Christopher J.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Neilson, Francis

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soares, Ernest

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  Summers, James Wooley

  Hinds, John

  O'Grady, James

  Sutton, John E

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

  Toulmin, George

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Johnson, W.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Janes, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Webb, H.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F.

  Law, Hugh A.

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Leach, Charles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, Sir Robert J.

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Logan, John William

  Primrose, Hon. Nell James

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

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

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

  MacGhee, Richard

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

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account."
  I do it for this reason, that the relations between the Exchequer and the finances of Scotland and Ireland undoubtedly want revising. Recent legislation has undoubtedly improved the position both of Scotland and Ireland at the expense of the Exchequer, and I do not think that we should continue the present system of allowing these funds to go to these local authorities until the whole relations between the Exchequer and Scotland and Ireland have been inquired into. Some years ago an independent committee sat at Edinburgh, under Mr. Jamieson, and came to the conclusion, though Scotsmen themselves, that Scotland was treated generously by the Exchequer, and they had nothing more to ask for. I think the trend of more recent legislation has turned that generosity into lavishness,
  1704
  and I do not think we should extend and increase the payments under this Section until the whole matter has been gone into. I have to learn the views of the Treasury on the point.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Whether the hon. Gentleman approves or does not approve of the proposals we make in this Clause, at all events it is a symmetrical proposal which deals on precisely similar terms with the local taxation account of the three countries. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would isolate Scotland and render our treatment of her entirely different from that of the two other countries. For that reason I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPSmoved in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "and every subsequent financial."

  1705
  This is really a matter of very important principle. We have to deal with the future Grant paid out of the Exchequer to the Local Taxation account. The proposal is not only for the current year but for every subsequent year, but the amount shall annually be the same as the amount paid into that account in the year 1909. In the first place it is extremely unfair to stereotype the account at all. That account ought to grow in proportion to the amount which comes from the taxes. It is quite contrary to principle to determine a matter of this sort, not only for one year but for every subsequent year. The Secretary to the Treasury said 1909 would be fatal to the local authorities, because it would be higher than the amount in 1910. Well, to a certain extent that is true, because 1910 was an exceedingly low year. But if you go back behind 1909 to the last five or six, or even ten years, I believe in every case the amount was larger than it was in 1909. Therefore, what you are really doing is taking a comparitively low year when the amount paid to the local authorities was far below the average—as a matter of fact about £100,000 below the average—you take a low year and say, so far as the local authorities are concerned, their payments are to be limited to that amount. Surely we should deal fairly with the local authorities. They have regulated their expenditure in reliance on the fact that there has been a constant growth as regards the amount payable to them out of the local taxation account. It is notorious in connection with that that local expenditure is growing, and has been growing, for years. I do not believe that tendency can be arrested. There are a large number of important questions local authorities have to deal with, and so far from the Treasury seeking to starve them, the Treasury ought to treat them in what I would call a generous fashion. There is no reason for taking a low year and stereotyping a low amount for every year in the future. I believe that earlier in the discussions a concession was made, and the words were inserted—"until Parliament otherwise determines." Of course, these words would not weaken the Amendment. They leave the matter over for subsequent discussion. I think the words of my Amendment would be better because, if the Clause stands as it is at present, it would be a determination by Parliament that these amounts should be limited, and unfairly limited, not only for the current year, but for every subsequent year.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made to the Committee would have the effect of limiting the arrangement which is made under this Bill to exactly three weeks. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee will consider that matter they will see that in those circumstances it would hardly be worth while asking Parliament to make this arrangement at all. We have, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, taken a year which is perhaps not the most favourable, but which is certainly not the least favourable. The revenue payable in respect of that year—not payable in that year, but in respect of that year—was swollen unquestionably by circumstances into which I need not now go. Having fixed on that year, which has yielded a more satisfactory revenue for educational purposes than years which preceded it, I fear we must adhere to the form of the Clause.
  Mr. LONG: If the Amendment were intended in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman has interpreted it the effect would, no doubt, be to bring the proposal in the Bill to an end in an untimely manner. What we want is to secure the same result as we sought to bring about in regard to Clause 10. That was an injury you were doing; this is an insult you are adding to the injury. Under the previous Clause you have repealed your own legislation, and have taken away what you yourselves admitted with a great flourish of trumpets to be the property of the local authorities. In this Clause you are stereotyping your payment and selecting a year which is singularly unfavourable. Having had some experience of this local taxation question as President of the Local Government Board, I venture to say that the State, when it makes a contribution in aid of local rates has always made it a practice to take an average of years. The State never yet took a single year, and it certainly would not take a year which was the lowest since 1894, with the exception of last year. Let the Committee realise the injustice which is being done here. If hon. Members Mad the figures before them they would realise that they are doing a grave injustice. Consider the question of London alone. London suffers enormously, because certain payments were stereotyped, not by grants out of the Exchequer, but in the distribution between local authorities and others. And that very stereotyping did London enormous

  1707
  injury, because, while the expenditure which London is called on to bear, as a great centre of local government, is constantly increasing—and properly so—the contribution which the State makes in respect of it remains at a fixed sum. I defy anybody to show there is any justice in a plan of that kind. The State is asked to come forward and say to the local authorities: "We accept responsibility for certain expenditure, which in our judgment should be regarded as national, and not local. In order to meet that, for want of a better system we make you a block grant."
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not in order on the Clause. It has been pointed out that the particular effect of this Amendment would be to limit the operation of the Clause to a period ending at the close of the current financial year. Therefore I should confine the discussion to the alleged limits within which the Clause would operate.
  Mr. LONG: I should not for a moment wish to clash any ruling of yours, Sir. Although I admit the phraseology of this Amendment would not have the effect we desire, we do desire to prevent the Government making statutory and continuous a system to which we object, and which we think should be limited as the proposal in Clause 10 has been to some degree limited by the insertion of the words "until Parliament otherwise determines." This proposal without amendment of some kind will make permanent an injustice which ought certainly to be remedied within a brief period of time. I was in hopes that the Government—who, I do not think can contest the justice of our cause—might be prepared to insert some words which, if they would not redress our grievance, would at all events mitigate it. Increasing Grants-in-Aid are made by the Imperial Exchequer to share with the local authorities those burdens, and great danger attached to the selection of one particular year and then stereotyping that year. Once you take that line it is natural that Parliament is reluctant to open up the whole question and find a new method. Though London and many of our great towns have complained bitterly, no serious attempt has been made to secure a better basis of distribution. Therefore, if the Government are not prepared to produce a new scheme, I respectfully submit they should not be allowed to perpetuate a system which is a bad one, and if they are going
  1708
  to perpetuate it should take the average of a number of years. I submit also that whatever arrangement they make now should be of a purely temporary character, so that the hands of Parliament should be free to deal with this question untrammelled in the future.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I rise for the purpose of moving, Sir, that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again. I frankly admit we have not made quite the progress which the Government had hoped, and we have not made the progress which the Prime Minister expected we should make, but we have made very substantial progress, which well repays the exertions which Members on all sides have been put to. If we were to continue to discuss these Amendments without breaking off within a reasonable period there would be very unusual embarrassment because of the printing of the Order Paper for the Friday sitting, and we should run the risk of sacrificing the Friday sitting, which would be a very unfortunate and untoward occurrence, and which would lose us at a stroke the advantages for which we have toiled so long in the progress of public business. In these circumstances, having regard to the great importance which we attach to the Supplementary Estimates which are down for the Friday sitting, I respectfully beg to move that you do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. LONG: I do not propose to oppose the Motion. It is a proof that the right hon. Gentleman has taken to heart the saying "It is never too late to mend," and as there is abundant room for improvement I am glad to see him seizing the opportunity. I, for one, rejoice to come to this conclusion, and with this relief from a very arduous, a not altogether satisfactory, but not unprofitable, task.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next [13th March.]
  And it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes before Ten a.m., Friday, 10th March.