Commons Sitting of 24 March 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PEIVATE BUSINESS.
London Electric Railway Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.
Bristol Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [22nd March] as relates to the appointment of a Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords] be now considered:
Lords' Message considered accordingly:—
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Four Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords to consider the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords], as requested by their Lordships.—[Mr. Burns.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Ordered, That the said Committee be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—[Mr. Burns.]
Thames Conservancy Bill,—Order for committal [13th February] read, and discharged:—Bill committed to the Joint Committee on the Metropolitan Water Board (New Works) Bill [Lords].—[Mr. Burns.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Ordered, That all Petitions in favour of or against the Thames Conservancy Bill, presented not later than Thursday, 30th March, be referred to the Joint Committee.
Ordered, That the Petitioners, praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard in favour of or against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.—[Mr. Burns.]
Marriages Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CLAUSE 1.—Issue of £476,815 11s. 8d. out of the Consolidated, Fund for the service of the years ending 31st March, 1910 and 1911.
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and apply towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1910–11, the sum of £476,815 11s. 8d.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was a little surprised yesterday at the somewhat imprudent remark of the Prime Minister that no one had ever found it possible to talk at length on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I will not say all that I might and could say upon it, but I wish to ask the Financial-Secretary to the Treasury whether the words "services of the years" ending 31st March, 1910, and 31st March, 1911, arise out of the abnormal situation which occurred at the end of the last financial year, or whether they are inserted merely in order to put right the somewhat mysterious and recondite matter known as "Excess Votes?" Why should we now be setting out in the Consolidated Fund sums not only with regard to the financial year ending 31st March this year but also for the year before?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that an "Excess Vote" has reference not to the finance of the past year but of the year previous to that. Therefore, it is quite

789
right to charge the sums on the "Excess Votes" in the way we have done.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2 —Issue of £35,510,500 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1912.
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and apply towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, the sum of thirty-five million five hundred and ten thousand five hundred pounds.
Clause agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—Power for the Treasury to borrow. 40 & 41 Vict. c. 2.
(1) The Treasury may borrow from any person, by the issue of Treasury Bills or otherwise, and the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland may advance to the Treasury on the credit of the said sums, any sum or sums not exceeding in the whole thirty-five million nine hundred and eighty-seven thousand three hundred and fifteen pounds eleven shillings and eight-pence.
(2) The date of payment of any Treasury Bills issued under this Section shall be a date not later than the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twelve, and Section 6 of the Treasury Bills Act, 1877 (which relates to the renewal of bills), shall not apply with respect to those bills.
(3) Any money borrowed otherwise than on Treasury Bills shall be repaid, with interest not exceeding five pounds per cent. per annum, out of the growing produce of the Consolidated Fund, at any period not later than the next succeeding quarter to that in which the money was borrowed.
(4) Any money borrowed under this section shall be placed to the credit of the account of the Exchequer, and shall form part of the said Consolidated Fund, and be available in any manner in which such Fund is available.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to leave out the words "or otherwise" in Sub-section (1). I wish to know what are the alternative methods of borrowing which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Treasury may get money by advances from the Bank, and not by the issue of Treasury Bills. I think the hon. Gentleman knows what the term means.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move in Sub-section (2) to leave out the word "March" ["March one thousand nine hundred and twelve"] and to insert instead thereof the word "September." In the Short Loans Bill last year that was introduced to meet the very peculiar situation which arose from the refusal of the Government to collect Income Tax. The borrowing powers extended until September. I should like to know why they take power to borrow for a very much longer term in this instance.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the existing law which requires that all Treasury Bills shall be paid within the year in which they are borrowed unless there is special legislation to the contrary. The temporary powers we had were extended last year in order to meet the exceptional financial circumstances of the year. The ordinary date on which Treasury Bills expire is within the financial year. It is to meet that that we require March and not Sep-tember as the proper date.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: This Amendment was really consequential and in order to make the borrowing powers extend only to this September. I may be wrong but I thought the Bill last year only took borrowing powers for six months.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: To September.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: But not the September of this year. This Amendment is an Amendment by way of restriction. You want more borrowing powers now than you took last year under those very exceptional circumstances.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: "The date of payment of any Treasury Bills issued under this section shall be a date not later than the 31st of March, 1912," that is to say, the end of the financial year within which they are borrowed. It is not an extension. It is the usual process.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: You take power for a year. Last year you only took power for six months.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No. It was six months over the financial year. This is within the financial year.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: On that point I am quite satisfied with the explanation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. JAMES HOPEmoved, in Subsection (2) to leave out from the word "twelve" to the end of the Sub-section.
This point was taken by the hon. and lamented Members, father and son, Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles and Mr. George Bowles. They pointed out frequently that this was an extension of the former practice, that formerly these Bills had to be repayable the next sinking quarter, and that from the year 1902 the Government—I admit a Conservative Government—took much wider powers. I do not think that these wider borrowing powers should be given, at any rate to the present Government. In 1902 they were all right. I want to know how the right hon. Gentleman justifies the Treasury having these powers, for they are quite against former Liberal precedents.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not follow the purport of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. The clause as it stands is the usual clause giving the usual powers to the Government of the day for the transaction of financial business.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: The usual powers now, but they were not usual before 1902. The extension of powers then given was resisted and criticised severely by the friends of the right hon. Gentleman. How does he justify adherence to this Tory precedent created in 1902?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The criticism must have proceeded from the Conservative Benches if the proposal was criticised by Mr. Gibson Bowles.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: And from your Friends too.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It was not joined in by me, nor so far as I know by any of my hon. Friends.
Captain CRAIG: I find that in the debate which took place in March, 1909, the right hon. Gentleman introduced the debate himself, and Mr. Stewart Bowles in bringing forward a somewhat similar motion pointed out that the old principle was only altered in 1902, and he said that this increase of the borrowing powers of the Treasury means an increase of unfunded
792
debt, and that it was proposed in a moment of inattention in the year 1902. What my hon. Friend behind me said is quite true. Up to that date it was incumbent upon the Treasury to have the twelve months instead of the three, and he is now striving to revert to this limitation by his Amendment. It is quite a sensible one, because the extension of the borrowing powers of the Treasury means the passing of control more or less out of the hands of this House. The object of the Amendment is to keep a close hand on the finances of the country as far as possible to do so under a Radical Government. I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment. It is put forward in a very temperate way. Hon. Members opposite explained when seeking the suffrages of the people that it returned to office they would keep a close eye on the financial proposals of the Government. This Amendment would carry out strictly those pledges, and satisfy a great many of their supporters in the country. It is a very simple matter, making the Treasury responsible for three months instead of for a year, and I shall be glad to vote for the Amendment.
Amendment put, and negatived.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to leave out the word "five" ["not exceeding five pounds per cent. per annum"] and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
Does the presence of the word "five" suggest that the Government contemplate that they may have to borrow money at 5 per cent.?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: My answer is in the negative.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Then why should it appear year after year that we may borrow money at this exorbitant rate, and why should the Treasury have power to borrow money at 5 per cent. it that figure is unnecessary?
Question, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I think we have shown the right hon. Gentleman that we have arguments which we could have applied to the Bill during the next two hours, and I would beg to remind the Prime Minister of the grave risk he ran in making the rash statement he did yesterday that no one was able to raise a

793
discussion in Committee. I think the Clause is unnecessary, but I do not propose to divide against it.
Question put, and agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down (Captain Craig), I have not had time to refer back in order to ascertain whether or not this Clause has been moved before on a Consolidated Fund Bill, which is not what is technically known as an Appropriation Bill. But whether that be the case or not I have been looking carefully into the proposed new Clause, and I find that there is nothing in it to alter the present state of the law, and therefore it is not in order.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles was allowed to move a Clause last year which was identical in words with the present Clause put down by the hon. and gallant Member.
The CHAIRMAN: I have since further considered the matter, and, as regards this Bill, I have come to the conclusion that the new Clause is not in Order.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

REVENUE BILL.
Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 9th March.]
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

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 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 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.
Amendment proposed [9th March].
In Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and every subsequent" ["in the current and every subsequent financial year"].—[Sir Alfred Cripps.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: This Amendment is an extremely important one, as between the local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer. Unfortunately, the effect of the present Bill is further to deprive the local authorities of the funds to which they are justly entitled in order to transfer them from the ratepayer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I consider that a most unjust proposal, because at the present time the ratepayer is very harshly treated. Clause 11 of the Bill purports to deal with some of the provisions under Section 17, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act of 1907. The effect of Subsection (2) is that funds, to be afterwards distributed for local taxation purposes, were in the first instance to be paid into the National Exchequer. There is one point in the section with which I would like to deal, and which I think really arises under my Amendment. It provides that the rate of duty as regards the fund to be collected by the local authorities, may be changed, but that if the change is detrimental to the local authority, the local authority is not to suffer, but is to have the advantage of three years' average in order that its just claim might be properly guarded. In other words, by that provision the principle of average was admitted, which I beg to suggest is

795
the only proper principle in any way admissible at all. In dealing with Clause 11 of the Bill, and in order that the Committee may understand the importance of this matter, I will give one or two statistics which are sufficient for my purpose. They have reference to large municipal boroughs, and they show clearly what the position is. The Committee know that the funds which come out of the Local Taxation Account are primarily allocated to particular services. As regards those services since 1888, in connection with these allocated sums, the total expenses have gone up from £3,380,036 to £5,646,094. In other words, there has been an increase—this is an extremely important matter to the ratepayer—to the extent of 85.8 per cent. During that period the assigned revenues from the Exchequer have only gone up from £1,110,000 to £1,317,000, or to the extent of 18.7. I do think that no stronger argument than these figures afford could be adduced against the proposal contained in the Bill, which would permanently determine that these revenues should be assessed at an extremely low figure. The effect of the expenses having gone up to the extent of 85.8 and the assigned revenues only to the extent of 18.7 is that the charge to the ratepayer as regards these matters has gone up no less than 124.5 per cent.—in other words, it has more than doubled since the arrangement made under the Act of 1888. The charge on the ratepayer is more than doubled and the Government now come forward with a proposal which would diminish the amount, which, under the Act of 1888, was assigned in respect of this heavy expenditure for the benefit of the ratepayers.
The policy of Clause 11 is in accordance with the policy of Clause 10. That is to say, the funds to which the ratepayer legitimately is entitled are being filched from him and taken out of his pocket for the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without, as far as I can see, any justification put forward of any sort or kind. The figures to which I have referred must show that if any alteration ought to be made on the principle of the Act of 1880 is carried out not a less amount should be given from the Exchequer as regards these particular services and duties, but a very much larger amount than the ratepayer is receiving at the present time. The Clause proposes that not only for this current financial year but that also in subsequent financial years the
796
amount shall be stereotyped on the 1909 figure. What is the result of that? The 1909 figure is a very low figure. If you go back from a series of years before 1909 and took anything like an average the rate-paying authorities would get at least £100,000 more per year than under the present proposal. Is this a time when the Government should adopt the attitude of unduly penalising the ratepayer, when, according to their own view, the whole matter ought to be readjusted, in order that the ratepayer should get fairer terms than he does at present. When this matter was brought up on the last occasion the Secretary to the Treasury raised this defence, that if the Amendment was carried it would only extend to three weeks—one week now. May I submit to him that that is no answer to my argument. It happens that this Revenue Bill is very late as regards the date, but what it refers to is the year ending on 1st April, 1911. If this had been passed under normal conditions some time last July, then the point of the right hon. Gentleman would not have arisen at all. But what argument is in it. The purport of my Amendment is to apply this reduced amount to the current year only, and it does not matter whether it is three weeks or a fortnight, or any other time, in the sense the right hon. Gentleman called attention to. We are seeking to protect the ratepayer in this House against these abnormal claims made against him by the Exchequer, and to secure that if portion of the funds is to be depleted or diminished, that it shall be for one year only, and that the Government ought not to lay down what is to be the policy on a question of this great moment as regards future years. Although this matter of the allocation of funds between the local and central bodies is extremely complicated, I do hope the Committee will come to the conclusion that they will make as certain as they can, when the ratepayer is so very heavily burdened, that nothing is allowed in the Revenue Bill to put him in a distinctly worse position than he is in at present. It is on those grounds that I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept my Amendment, because the effect of it will be only to apply the principle for the one year, the current financial year, and leave the question of final adjustment to some subsequent occasion. The word "financial" is not required in the Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman desire to move only "and every subsequent"?
Sir A. CRIPPS: That will be sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir A. GRIPPSmoved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and every subsequent" ["in the current and every subsequent financial year."]
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I desire heartily to endorse what has just been said by my hon. and learned Friend. The object of this Clause appears to be to stereotype upon a somewhat low amount the subsidy provided by the Government for the purpose of so-called higher education, and to stereotype that to an amount which I suggest detracts from the efficiency of local government and particularly at a time when there is an effort being made by every local authority to popularise and render more progressive their educational efforts. I think the House will agree there is no more important subject in this country to-day than the subject towards which this fund is destined to be applied. We expend at the present time something like £33,000,000 upon elementary education, and, speaking as a member of a local education authority, I find it very difficult to justify anything like that enormous expenditure, unless it is on the footing that it is to a large extent the basis upon which a larger and more efficient educational structure is to be erected. This expenditure upon elementary education is largely applied towards teaching the children how to learn, and there, it seems to me, in 99 per cent. of the cases affected the purpose of our educational endowment ceases. The amount proposed by this Clause to be allocated to this purpose is the smallest amount that has been produced by the Whisky Duty for a period of fourteen years. During the whole of that time there has been, I am sure, what the Committee will welcome, and that is an increased demand, and particularly in the country districts, for secondary or higher education of the right kind. When I say right kind, I mean of a character to render the child more efficient in the industry in which that child is likely thereafter to be employed. It comes to this, then, that although there is more demand for higher education, in which, let me say, this country is more deficient in its supply than any other country in Europe, except possibly Russia, there is in effect a less supply owing to the parsimony of the British Government. Let me point out the actual effect which this parsimony brings about so far as education is concerned. The burden upon
798
the rates, as all admit, is becoming intolerable at the present time. That burden falls very largely on the very class which is calculated most to be benefited by this, subsidy towards higher education, that is to say, as regards the country districts the small farmers and tradespeople. These people have very little provision made for the education of their children to-day, and yet they have to bear an undue burden with regard to the provision made for the education of the children in the elementary schools. The result is a steadily increasing prejudice on the part of those who have to provide a very large portion of these educational funds, and the ultimate outcome is that they, through their representatives on the local education authorities, show an increasing averseness from progress in the matter of education. Therefore, on educational grounds, above all others, I make a strong appeal to the Government that, instead of stereotyping this sum at the lowest point possible in view of what has been received in recent years, they should at any rate fix such an average—I would suggest an average of ten years—as would show the local education authorities that they have some real sympathy with higher or secondary education, and that they are prepared to do something to advance the efforts being genuinely made by the authorities to put an efficient superstructure on the elementary education upon which we are spending such an enormous amount of money.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Act of 1902 it is impossible to impose a rate of more than 2d. in the £1 for the purposes of higher education. In many counties that limit has been reached, but the provision for higher education which the local authorities desire to make is impossible because they have no funds other than the whisky money for that purpose. In a great number of agricultural counties the limit has not been reached, and is never likely to be, owing to the enormous and growing prejudice of the over-burdened ratepayers against education, not because they do not believe in education, but simply because the Government subsidy is so small and their own children are those who benefit the least from the expenditure now made. Bearing in mind that we are far from being in the van of educational progress as compared with other countries, and that the Government are repeatedly telling us that they are genuinely interested

799
in education, particularly higher education, and regard it as the most valuable asset with which any of our people can be endowed, I fervently appeal to the Government, instead of stereotyping the amount, to take an average of, say, ten years, and thus do some justice to the local authorities, who are doing their best to carry out the serious and responsible duties which the Government are continually putting upon them.
Mr. DILLON: As this is a question of vital interest to Ireland, I regret exceedingly that the Chief Secretary has not found it possible to be present. In his absence we bring forward the Irish aspect of the case under great difficulties. In Ireland this particular Clause does not raise the question referred to by the Mover of the Amendment, at least primarily; it does not penalise the ratepayer, but it starves education. The situation in Ireland differs in many respects from that in England. In the first place, owing to a variety of causes too complicated to go into in this Debate, it has been found impossible to obtain from the rates any assistance for education primary or secondary. Whatever the merits of that question may be, I do not propose to discuss it to-day. All Irish Governments have recognised the impossibility, and personally I do not think it can ever be overcome or that the rates can ever be made contributory to education until we have a national government in the country. Hence Irish secondary education is deprived of all present aid and of all hope of aid from the rates. Furthermore, we have lost in years gone by all those rich endowments which are scattered so freely over Great Britain, and which contribute very largely to secondary education in this country. The position of secondary education is far worse in Ireland than in Great Britain. This grant is its chief support, but even at its high-water mark it was insufficient, complaints were constant, and demands were made every year for increased funds. In Ireland we have only the whisky money and £33,000 a year derived from the investment of the Church Surplus Fund, which is purely Irish money. In this country, in addition to the assistance from the rates, the ancient endowments to which I have referred, and the whisky money, intermediate education obtains a further grant of between £600,000 and £700,000 in the annual Estimates. We do not receive a
800
single farthing in the way of an equivalent to that grant; therefore the case for Ireland is a fortiori much stronger than the case for England.
In the year 1900, the whisky money amounted to £71,400, and the total income of the Irish Intermediate Education Board was £104,000. The amount gradually decreased until in 1908, the year selected by the Government, it had fallen to £49,500, and the total revenue of the Board was only £83,000. In the year 1900 the number of students was 7,608, and the number who passed their examinations 5,314, whereas in 1908 the number of students had risen to 11,383, of whom 7,000, in round figures passed their examinations. That is to say, the students had increased by nearly 50 per cent., while the provision for the schools had fallen by about £21,000. Consequently there has existed for several years in the provision of intermediate education in Ireland a crisis which has been growing in intensity year by year, until finally there is a state of absolute bankruptcy. What the Government propose to do is to take the year immediately preceding the Budget year, in which year, I believe, the whisky money amounted to £50,000, and to stereotype that as an unchanging annual grant; and, furthermore, to pay in respect of last year the difference between £50,000 and £16,000 or £17,000. By that you leave the whole system of intermediate education in Ireland bankrupt. I do not intend to go into the subject at very great length, because the Irish Secretary is not present, and we cannot expect from the replies of the Treasury any final or complete answer to this question. But I cannot allow this Clause to pass without making this protest. I hope and trust that when the Government have given attention to this matter, and make a proposal, as they must make one in the near future to settle this question—unless they are prepared to allow the whole of this important branch of education in Ireland to collapse and become bankrupt—I hope that they will make an attempt to do something to remedy what is a disgrace to this country, as well as to Ireland. Many bodies of teachers in this country have grievances, and we are accustomed to have their claims advocated from various quarters of this House.
I venture to assert without fear of contradiction that there is no body of teachers in the whole of the United Kingdom whose condition is so disgraceful and so abject as that of these intermediate teachers in

801
the schools of Ireland. The salaries of the men teachers has been declared by one of your own Commissioners to be an average of £83 per annum. The average of the women's salaries is, I think, about £50 per annum. They have no security; no prospect before them, and, in fact, a greater slavery could not be conceived than theirs. Nothing has been done to improve their position. It is absolutely impossible to have a sound system of education in any country where the teachers of the intermediate schools—which are certainly not the least important branch of education—are left in such a position of abject misery. I do not think I use too strong words when I say that theirs is a simple condition of degradation. I therefore make this protest. This subject will be renewed when the Irish portion of the Estimates come on. I trust the Government will then be prepared to lay before us some scheme which at least will hold out a hope of the rescue of intermediate education in Ireland from degradation and bankruptcy.
Mr. WALTER LONG: May I call attention to the very remarkable circumstances in which we are debating the reasonable Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend? The question which is raised by this Clause which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to deal with by his Amendment, is one that touches two very important Acts of the Government. In the first place it raises the whole question, as the mover and seconder of the Amendment have shown, of Local Taxation and its unjust treatment by the Government. In the second place it deals with the pledges made by the Government before the General Election, maintained during the General Election, and only abandoned after the General Election, that certain parts of the new taxes should be devoted to a particular purpose. We on this side of the House regret as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the cause of that absence. It is especially to be regretted in connection with the Debates on this Bill, because everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman is in more than the usual degree responsible both for the original Bill and for the Revenue Bill now under consideration.
1.0 P.M.
I mean no disrespect whatever to the Secretary to the Treasury when I say that we on this side cannot regard the Debate upon this vast question, opening up as it does two distinct pledges made by the Government,
802
both of which have been abandoned, as in these circumstances satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo has raised a very important question of the effect on Ireland, a matter on which there is a great deal that might be said with propriety. But the hon. Member has said he would not carry the matter further because he could not expect the Secretary to the Treasury to make an adequate reply. To what a farce our proceedings are reduced! What other opportunity shall we have to discuss the tremendous question of local taxation? This is the last occasion upon which we shall be able to remind the Committee and the country that the Government first of all promised last year, in the most definite and precise terms that Ministers could use, to deal in an exhaustive and complete way with the whole question of local taxation. They have not touched it. On the contrary, when they were reminded of their pledge in an earlier Debate they told us that it was impossible to redeem those pledges, and they talked about a Committee. Now we have come to the last occasion upon which we shall be able to discuss the question, and we have not heard one word of the Committee that is going to inquire into the question.
So much for the main question. We are now discussing the proposal of the Government, which they have substituted for the pledge they made before the country and in Parliament, and largely due to the pressure, I admit, brought to bear upon them from both sides of the House, that certain proceeds should be given to the people, who, according to the Government, had themselves created this new source of revenue. In place of that we are called upon to-day——
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the question of allocating to, or taking from, local authorities any specific sources of revenue does not arise upon this Clause.
Mr. LONG: With the greatest possible respect, I think that is a function admirably fulfilled by the Chairman of Committees. I think we are perfectly safe in his hands. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt technically true, but he will forgive me for saying that his interruption but exhibits the splendid tradition of the Treasury in this House: that of trying to prevent us from discussing broad principles, and of narrowing the position down.

803
It is perfectly true that Clause 11 does not raise the question of pilching this revenue from the local authorities. That is done under Clause 10. But you cannot discuss the question of your new revenue without raising the question of the other proposal. Whatever may be the Rules of Debate in this Committee it will be impossible to discuss the allocation of further funds without bearing in mind that other funds not in detail, hut in passing, or the place apparently to be filled by the new proposal. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not rise immediately after the Amendment had been moved in a speech as full and complete as the time allowed. In Committee the Government enjoy the advantage they do not of course enjoy on Report stage, except by permission of the House, that is, they can make one, two, or half-a-dozen speeches on the same question. It is not sufficient therefore for the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us he is waiting for the whole case. He has got the case with all the main principles and details, and we ought to know before we proceed further what is the intention of the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposite here to-day to make a satisfactory announcement? Is he ready to make any concession? Is he prepared to abandon the vicious principle of taking a year favourable to those who want to find the revenue but most unfavourable to those who have to find the rates if the revenue is insufficient? Is he here to say he abandons that most vicious and unfair principle, or that there is to be a modification of it, which, although, perhaps, not wholly satisfactory, may go some way to meet our cause? The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have dealt with the general question as it affects the provinces. I wish to say a few words upon the case of London. I referred to London upon a previous occasion, and gave the right hon. Gentleman a variety of statistics dealing with London. That statement has been largely strengthened by the statements made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) and others, and not one word is said in answer to any of these arguments. The case for the country generally is bad enough, but in London it is infinitely worse. In London the average amount of the rates compare most unfavourably with the rest of the country. It is difficult to bring the figures up to
804
date, and the latest I have been able to get are those for 1907–8. The rates raised per head of the population in county boroughs amounted to £1 13s. 5d., in other boroughs and urban districts £1 12s. 2d., in rural districts £1 4s. 11d., and in London £3 3s. 3d., more than twice as much as any others. If, on the other hand, you take the Exchequer contribution, you find the average contributions per head of the population, taking the figures for 1879–80 and 1907–8, for the administrative county of London—in the first period the rates £1. 7s. 11.9d., and in the latter period £3 3s. 2½d., and the Exchequer grants 3s. 10.7d. and 12s. 5d. respectively. If you take the rest of England and Wales, the rates in 1879–80 were 15s. 6.4d., and in 1907–8 £1 9s. 6½d., but the Exchequer contribution has risen from 1s. 10.5d. to 11s. 9.4d. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham show that in the case of London the Exchequer contribution has almost reached the vanishing point. I refer to them very briefly, because it is impossible to deal with this question in a short speech, but the case we have made has shown that the position of local taxation throughout the whole country is most unsatisfactory, and that in the Metropolis it is more unsatisfactory still, and that both the country and the Metropolis are entitled to call for prompt relief. What is the answer we get?
In the original Debates the Government pointed out that certain revenue should go to the local authorities. I remember the speeches of two hon. Gentlemen opposite in these Debates. On the last occasion when the subject was under discussion one of them was in his place at eight o'clock in the morning, an interested but a silent listener. The other, who had an Amendment on the Paper similar to that moved by my hon. Friend to-day, was not even a spectator on that occasion. We all know how, before the last election hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite pressed the Government upon this question. The Secretary to the Treasury now reminds us we are not dealing with the taking away of public monies, but with the provision of new ones. In the light of the figures given to the Committee, is that not almost a scandal that we should be asked to accept a new contribution, selected on a basis altogether unjustifiable and grossly unjust to the local authorities and to the ratepayers of the country, that we should be face to face with the fact that the Government have departed from

805
all deliberate principles laid down as to the way local taxation should be dealt with, and that we should debate the matter now in ignorance of the views of the Government, and in the absence of anybody who is able to deal adequately with the subject, and make a full statement upon it. I certainly hope notice will be taken of the conditions under which we are asked to debate this question. It is bad enough to be called to enter upon it at seven or eight o'clock in the morning, but it is worse to be called upon to debate it on an ordinary day, with the Government Front Bench deserted by everybody except the Secretary to the Treasury, who is not in a position to make a definite pronouncement, and to make an announcement which possibly may affect the proceedings of this day. It is usual for the Government of the day in questions of this kind to hear and consider all that is to be said, and, if necessary, to make concessions. It is possible for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make announcements of this kind, and it is almost a scandal that we should be called upon to debate a question of this great importance under the conditions which prevail here to-day.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not quite know what is the reason why the right hon. Gentleman complains that there is no one here to represent the Government and to announce the Government's decision. I quite understand that it would be infinitely preferable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, if that were possible. I do not pretend or desire to pretend in any way to speak with the same authority as he does; but, on the other hand, I have had the opportunity of consulting the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend, and therefore if it is not the voice of the Chancellor which is pronouncing the decision of the Government, it is, at all events, the voice of one who has had the advantage of full and most elaborate co-operation with him in the preparation of this measure. The right hon. Gentleman talked about this tremendous question coming before the House in very remarkable circumstances to-day. One would have thought, from the tenour of his speech and the arguments used, which I think were far outside the discussion raised by the words of this Clause, that the Government was preparing to take away from the local authorities large sources of revenue and great sums of money which would cripple them in the operation of their educational work, and
806
do them a grievous injustice generally. Now what is the practical operation of these two Clauses? Under Sub-section (1) the Government take a sum of £328,000 to make up the deficiency of the whisky money in the year 1909–10; and they take under Sub-section (2) a sum which, until the financial year is actually concluded, I cannot give the precise figures for, but a sum amounting to about £200,000 to make up the difference between the receipts of 1908–9 and 1910–11. That is to say, under the proposals of this Clause a sum in excess of the £500,000 is being allocated to the local authorities for the purposes of education, instead of that which they got under the operation of the Act, which was-the creation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Under what circumstances is it that this Clause has to be proposed? The receipts from whisky money fell short in 1909–10 owing to circumstances which I will not debate at this moment, by a very considerable sum of money. They say that the year 1908–9 is an improper year for the purpose of stereotyping income. What are the circumstances? So far as the whisky money is concerned, the year 1908–9 was not the year which was abnormally affected by the operation of the Finance Act or by any disturbance of taxes due to the imposition of any new burdens placed on spirits. On the contrary, the year 1908–9 was swollen by receipts from forestalments upon spirits due to the fear of what might come in the subsequent year. The receipts of 1908–9 were in excess of what they normally would have been if there had been no disturbing circumstances.
If the Committee will allow me I should like to point out how the receipts from the whisky money had been gradually falling not in consequence of any financial proposals of this Government, but by the growth of temperance among the population. The whisky money distributed in England in 1906–7 was £1,135,000, in Scotland £156,000, and in Ireland £111,000. In 1907–8 the amount was £133,000 in England, in Scotland £155,000, and in. Ireland £111,000. In the year 1908, notwithstanding that there were receipts in that year from forestalments of the coming financial year, the amount—owing to the operation of the inclination of the people of this country towards temperance and abstention from the consumption of spirits—dropped from £1,333,000 to £1,107,000 in England, in Scotland the amount dropped from £155,000 to £152,000, and in Ireland from £111,000 to £107,000. There was

807
clearly a constant decrease of revenue from this source which it was impossible to allocate to local authorities, and if in the year 1910 the remarkable falling off has led to these two Clauses, if that year had stood by itself, unaffected by the increased duty on spirits, there would have been a much greater drop and much less revenue available for the local authorities than we propose under these Clauses. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks we have taken an unfair year. I venture to put before the Committee arguments which I think are of weight in considering this matter, which shows that we have not taken an unfair year, but one which is abnormally swollen to the advantage of the local authorities. We propose to give them £328,000 in respect of 1909–10 and £200,000 in respect of 1910–11. I think it was the hon. Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. Charles Bathurst) who talked about the parsimony of the Government in educational matters. I wonder if the House is fully aware of the enormous sums which are paid by the taxpayers of this country in aid of education of all sorts throughout the country. This House contributes over £19,000,000, in addition to all that which is raised by the ratepayers in aid of education. I am not familiar with the educational Budgets of other countries, but I have doubts whether any other country in the world contributes so large a sum towards the needs and necessities of education.
Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I would like to know whether this Clause will affect the contribution to public elementary education?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was answering the general charge which was brought by the hon. Member for South Wiltshire about the parsimony of the Government in relation to education generally. There were other arguments addressed to the Committee besides those of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and it was one of those arguments I was proposing to deal with.
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: The point I attempted to make was the very small proportion allocated to education generally in this country which is devoted to higher education with which we are dealing. I do not think there is any civilised country in Europe in which so small a proportion of the national education funds is devoted to so-called education.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Because the Government propose to give £500,000 more than we are bound to give under the law as it stands we are accused of parsimony and cheeseparing. That argument may appeal to hon. Members opposite, but I do not think it will be found acceptable outside this House.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I think that is a little unfair.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. and learned Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who spoke from the Irish benches told us that in the case of Ireland it was not that the ratepayer was penalised, but the educational staff. The House is aware, as the hon. and learned Member said, that the ratepayer in Ireland contributes nothing towards the educational system of that country. He also used an argument which I thought was a very strange one. I hope I have not made an incorrect note of what he said, but he gave me to understand that he thought the proportion of Ireland ought to be larger, because the ratepayer contributed nothing.
Mr. DILLON: I did not say that at all. What we do claim is that the proportion for Ireland ought not to be made smaller than the equivalent to the English proportion because our ratepayers pay nothing. We have never claimed that we should get a larger proportion because we pay nothing from the rates.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I accept that view. I do not think that, under the proposal which is made now the proportion which we give to Ireland in future is an unfair proportion. We have arrested the fall in the proceeds of this tax given to Ireland for intermediate education, and there is a very considerable sum available at the present moment very largely contributed by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom in aid of intermediate education in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member may think—and justly think—that the contribution is not sufficient; I do not think there is any educational authority of any kind which thinks the contribution from the Treasury is sufficient. The Irish educational authorities are not peculiar in their views on that subject, but I should like it to be made clear that in the case of Ireland the question of education will come under the purview of that Committee about which the right hon. Gentleman challenged me a few moments ago, which we propose to set up to consider the relations between

809
Imperial and local taxation. I have communicated with certain local authorities, but I have not yet got their assent to the names which I referred to them. I hope, however, to be in a position on Monday to announce the constitution of the committee. If I hold it back for the present, I hope it will be understood that I do not quite like to anticipate the sanction of the local authorities being given to the appointment of persons connected with them.
Mr. LONG: You will announce that on Monday?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I hope I shall be able to announce that on Monday, but I do not bind myself to the day, because I am not a free agent in this matter. I hope, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman will see that the Government are really in earnest in this matter, and that they are in no way trying to hold back the subsequent report of that Committee. They will do everything in their power to expedite the work and the subsequent report of the Committee. I have not gone into all the questions raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I thought it would be very much better to give, as I hope, a clear explanation to the Committee of the proposals of the Government in the Bill, which I think ought to be satisfactory to the country. They will, at all events, arrest the decline in the revenue to the local authorities from the whisky money, and that ought to be satisfactory to the ratepayers of the country.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON Mr. HARRY LAWSON rose to continue the Debate.
Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Emmott, whether any Members on this side of the House are to be called on in this discussion? I would point out to you— —
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): That is a very improper question to put to me. Of course, I shall call on Members on that side of the House.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will forgive me if I say that his contribution has not added much fresh light to this discussion. There was one most extraordinary contradiction in his speech. He said it was unfair to accuse this Government with parsimony in respect of this Grant for higher education. He did not see that, first of all, the point is the proportion borne by the Imperial Grant to local expenditure; and, secondly, and more important still,
810
he contradicted himself in the most emphatic way. He said the year 1908–9 saw the lowest contribution ever made out of the whisky money to higher education. All the Government propose to do is to make up the whisky money, plus a small grant, to the amount of 1908–9. He prided himself upon the fact that, owing to the growth of temperance, less money was contributed to higher education in that year than had ever been done since the system was started. "More temperance," he said, "and less education." That was the cry he raised in order to justify his attack upon us for accusing the Government of not doing their duty in the promotion of national education. I want especially to draw the attention of the Committee to the hard case of London. It is the hardest case of all. Our very size is our weakness. A fifth of the national revenue is collected in London, and yet there is no part of the country the Government persecute in a fiscal sense to the extent it does London. It is quite true I cannot offer the right hon. Gentleman much. There is no solid vote in London to offer him. I do not see many hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite who represent the poorer parts of London. They have not attended to-day, and even if they were here it is doubtful whether we should have their support. If London Members would only render themselves as objectionable as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on this side of the House—I do not mean any offence, I am only speaking in a Parliamentary sense—the claims of London might have a better hearing, but, as it is, we appeal to deaf ears on the Treasury Bench. At the same time the case of London is infinitely worse than any that can be presented.
London has never had anything like the barest justice in respect of local taxation. In the first place the assigned revenues were given to us on the basis of the discontinued grants. That, in itself was an injustice. If, as was first proposed, we had had our grant made according to the indoor paupers, we should have received 30 per cent. instead of 22 per cent. as we get now. The Customs and Excise Duty was granted on exactly the same terms, so in London we are the greatest sufferers in the whole country. There is one broad figure which will appeal to the Committee. The proportion which the Grant from the Imperial Revenue bears to local taxation as a whole is in London only 15 per cent., against 25 per cent. in the county boroughs and 32 per cent. in the rest of the country. That is in broad figures. I could give

811
others. As a matter of fact, the calls are higher in London. We are supposed to set a standard in education.
"we are supposed to give a model to the rest of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] Yes, whether you like it or not, we have got the capital of the world here, and we are supposed to have a higher standard of education and to give better education than elsewhere. London, as a matter of fact, has been making great efforts, in spite of the Imperial Exchequer and in spite of the Government, to improve its higher and technical education. The amount granted by the Exchequer has been falling from year to year in proportion to the amount spent locally. I will quote only one figure. The rates now contribute 65 per cent. to higher education, against 53 per cent. in the first year, and the assigned revenues amount to only 34 per cent. as against 46 per cent. in the first year. Altogether, the grant in London only amounts to 31 per cent. as against 69 per cent. in the case of the elementary education to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. There is no part of the country which gets so little assistance from the Imperial Exchequer, and from which so much is asked. The root of the whole thing is that the assigned revenues were originally allocated on the basis of the discontinued grants, and the Government has done nothing to remedy it.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Who originally made those grants?
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: That is a mere tu quoque point which is not worth consideration. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to consider a case that is gradually, becoming harder. There is no part of the country, as he knows, where the rates are higher or where they fall so severely on the poorer population. There is a new departure in local taxation, and it is going to emphasise and increase the injustice done to the County of London. That is why I am putting this before the right hon. Gentleman, when he spoke from that table the other day, he made a great play with his own figures as against those submitted by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). He said the hon. Member was wrong, and the Treasury were right; I do not know whether he has read the answer of the London County Council to him. It is a very complete answer. I think I shall have him with me when I say that there is no better financial
812
authority than the Comptroller of the London County Council. He completely answers the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the various points he made, and he shows the case of London remains just as bad as it ever was. I am not allowed to go into that now. It was rather the grotesque part of the right hon. Gentleman's former statement as to the potential paupers, which will not count to London's gain——
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That question docs not arise. I have allowed a great deal of latitude on this Debate, but I cannot allow it to be carried any further.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I am coming back strictly to the whisky money and the assigned Revenues. As a matter of fact we in London are getting less out of this particular grant at the time when the proportion of rates is rising, and the sum assigned for higher education is falling. I would put that strongly to the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him whether, without bringing in party bias he cannot see that in London we have a stronger case than is presented elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] At any rate, we have greater arrears to make up in respect of education, and yet we are receiving much less than any other part of Great Britain. I hope in reference to the grant for education and especially that for higher education a new basis of allotment and allocation may be recognised. There is no part of the country where money is more wanted, and no part suffering more injustice.
The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) talked of the case of Ireland, but the case of the United Kingdom is infinitely worse than that of Ireland. In 1909 we received a lower grant than for fourteen years, whereas in Ireland it has been very different. The case of Ireland is so often put forward because the backing is so effective. We have no such backing, and I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if London does not get justice now our case in the last resort will be much worse than it is now. I see some hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent some of the poorer districts of London, I hope whatever their views on general politics may be they will agree that London has a better claim on the National Exchequer than any other part, because of the way in which it has suffered in the past. It is often asserted that we in this country have suffered from the want of adequate technical and higher training, and

813
that our industries are handicapped by a lack of that education rather than by the disparity of fiscal treatment. That being their argument surely they ought to do their utmost to enable us to equip our population adequately for the great race. Here in London you have practically six millions of people, and you choose to starve their education because in this House we cannot make ourselves as objectionable as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I hope there will be special consideration for London in the terms of reference to the Departmental Committee. It seems to me rather strange that all matters are now sent to a Departmental Committee rather than to a Select Committee of the House. Select Committees are the proper tribunal——
The CHAIRMAN: This is not the occasion upon which to raise that point.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Very well. Now, in reference to the whisky money, I hope there will be a special provision in the reference which will ensure that of all cases that of London will be adequately considered.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I am not sure that the case of poverty-stricken London will meet with any response from other parts of the United Kingdom. I have the pleasure of paying education rates in London, but I do not know exactly what they amount to. At any rate, in parts of my own county they total up to 6s. or 7s. in the £, whereas wealthier London comes in another class, to which special money is voted.
We have had a fair statement from the Treasury Bench upon this matter. I think that the provision for the distribution of the whisky money is a matter of urgent importance in this matter of the incidence of local taxation which has been so freely discussed to-day. I was a little alarmed by the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject with regard to the local authorities' half of the Land Value Duty. That was a very important point, but as for the rest of the subjects discussed on the benches opposite, it is impossible to say more until the whole question of the readjustment of local taxation comes before Parliament. We are dealing now with a specific point. On that point I think the proposals of the Government are perfectly fair. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now in his reference to the grievances of local taxation and to the length of time which has
814
been spent by both Governments in dealing with the question of the incidence of taxation. They have the support of nearly all of us on both sides of the House. Undoubtedly housing in urban centres and agricultural industries suffer heavily from the present incidence of local taxation. They are unduly overweighted, and I maintain that this question should be pressed forward as a whole, as that is the only way in which this grievance can be redressed. As to the limited question before the House, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a perfectly satisfactory explanation to a deputation from Scotland on the subject when he told them that this was a purely temporary measure until the whole question of local taxation was dealt with, and he had expressed his desire and readiness to deal with it at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. H. BARRIE: As one of the representatives of Ireland I wish to make some observations on this question. It has been suggested that the claims of Ireland receive more consideration in this House than those put forward by the hon. Members for the City of London. I hope we shall find that the hon. Member is correct on this occasion but I would venture to submit to the Committee that under the present proposals of the Government Ireland is receiving very much worst treatment than any other part of the United Kingdom. I had the opportunity of offering a few observations on this subject on the Second Reading of this Bill in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose absence this afternoon we all regret. He was good enough, however, to take note of the figures I then quoted, and he expressed a hope that he would be able to go further into the subject and to make a statement upon it at this stage. I have been disappointed that to-day we have heard nothing on that point, but I am rather led to believe by the absence of all observations on this branch of the subject that the Treasury has not succumbed to the pressure which our Nationalist friends I had hoped would put on it in this connection. First of all, I will deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). Both he and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury alike seem to be under the impression that at present no rate is being struck for any form of education in Ireland. But I may remind the Committee that, on the contrary, under the operation of the Technical Instruction

815
Act there is a rate being struck from one end of the country to the other at the present moment, and we are receiving in recognition of the striking of that rate a substantial contribution from the Treasury. I hope the day is not far distant when we shall find local authorities moving on to other branches of education and striking a rate which will also receive substantial recognition from the Treasury, but I deplore that under the proposals of the Government the present condition of secondary education will not be relieved to even the slightest extent, and all progress if the proposal of the Government is sanctioned and adopted to-day is absolutely barred, except in a few cases in Ireland where there are secondary schools which are lucky enough to have a substantial endowment. Unless they have they are absolutely unable to keep abreast of modern requirements.
Under the proposals of the Government there is no recognition of the falling revenue, which I admit has been more aggravated in recent years, but which has been going on for a long period. The secondary schools, and particularly the teachers employed in secondary education, find the position almost intolerable, and the net effect has been in many cases to drive those who recognise the value of secondary education to this side of the Channel to receive the best form of it. We received no encouragement to-day from the Financial Secretary in reference to this matter; in fact, he disputes the effect which the hon. Member for Mayo suggests would be the result of carrying the Government's proposal this afternoon, and went on to say that the whole matter would come under the purview of this Committee, a reference to the appointment of which has been made to-day. We are getting accustomed to matters of considerable importance not being brought before the House but being dealt with in this way, but may I venture to express the hope that when this Departmental Committee is appointed we shall find included amongst its numbers at least one representative of Irish education of acknowledged standing and reputation. I desire to refer very briefly to the questions more particularly affecting local authorities in Ireland, and the present state of what is termed the Local Taxation Account. It will be within the recollection of Members of the House who were present on the Second Reading Debate that the question was presented to them in the course of
816
that debate that under the proposal of the Government the local authorities, particularly the committees responsible for the management of the Irish lunatic asylums, will find themselves seriously hampered in their work if we are never to have this fund reinstated, not only to the extent of the increment derived from the standard year which the Government propose to stereotype, but to the full extent.
I need not repeat the figures that I then gave to the House, but I reaffirm the accuracy of those figures, and I have since had them checked by the authorities responsible for one of the largest asylums in Ireland. They agree that if the Government do not meet us in this matter we shall have to face a deficiency of something between £30,000 and £40,000 per annum, and if we do not obtain any relief whatever, it is, in my opinion, a distinct breach of an honourable understanding under which the asylums authorities in Ireland were encouraged to increase the standards of all these asylums and to bring up the standard of comfort in a way which would not have been possible had we not been encouraged and allowed to believe that the Government contribution of 4s. a week for inmates would have been at least maintained if not increased. At the time that this was first laid down as the standard of Government contribution, and I think I am right in saying that it was as far back as 1875, when Lord Iddes-leigh was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he intimated to the House in making that contribution that it was one which held the first claim upon the Government at that time, and which he hoped later on to improve. We have enjoyed that grant without interruption ever since the year 1875, and it is only this last year, for the first time, that there has been any falling of in that grant at all. The Treasury, however, have begun to show a want of consideration and sympathy for the troubles of rating authorities and recently for the first time they only received 68 per cent. of the nominal grant of 4s. a week with a statement that it was hoped later on the state of the fund would permit an increase. We have received the further contribution of 18 per cent., but there is still a shortage of the fund, and that is one of the many funds in which we have to face a deficiency, and we are still short by 14 per cent.
The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that this 4s. a week per inmate is paid out of the fund which this Clause deals with?
Mr. BARRIE: Certainly.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not paid under this, it is not the whisky money.
Mr. BARRIE: Yes, it is paid out of the licences and other Excise payments.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not paid out of the whisky money at all, or out of the 2d. a gallon on beer with which alone this Clause is concerned.
The CHAIRMAN: If it is not paid out of the Irish proceeds of the whisky money this question does not arise.
Mr. BARRIE: We are discussing the matter of whether it does come out of that. We have applied frequently to the Government for a full statement of how the sum is arrived at and up to now we have not had an answer to that question.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I can assure the hon. Member the 4s. is not paid out of the proceeds of the Spirit Duty and the 2d. a gallon on beer with which alone this Clause is concerned.
The CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member will not be in order in dealing with it.
Mr. BARRIE: I do not want to press the point, but may I remind the Committee that under the impression that this was strictly in order the Chief Secretary received a deputation from the local authorities on the 17th instant, and pointed to the matters to which I have attempted to call the attention of the Committee this afternoon. I think when he received that deputation he had with him a representative from the Treasury, and if it is not under this particular branch of the fund that this matter arises I should be grateful to the Secretary to the Treasury if he would point out under which branch we can get at the falling off.
Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to say that in rising just now I had not the least intention of impugning your conduct in the Chair, but I was under the impression that you had not seen Members who were rising on this side, and that was the reason I asked. The subject we are discussing is of the utmost importance to the Division which I represent. The reason I wanted to say two or three things to the Committee is that the hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) said we who represent poor districts are not so enthusiastic now in tackling the Government on this subject as we were during
818
the election, and I want to give the reasons why I intend voting for this Amendment. It was a little previous for the hon. Member to take it upon himself to lecture us in the way ho usually does when he disagrees with people. I am accustomed to his lectures elsewhere. The Gentlemen who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, are not the kind of people that we could take as true prophets in this matter. They were in power for at least ten years, and they did nothing to help London or in any way to relieve the tremendous burden that their supporter is telling us about this afternoon.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I said it?
2.0 P.M.
Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, the hon. Member said it, but he forgets these things when his party is in power. It is perfectly easy at this moment to be attacking the present Government. The point I want to urge is that if the whole question of Exchequer contributions is to be discussed it seems to me that there are other considerations beside those which have been put forward to-day, and the most important of them, so far as London is concerned, is that the whole system of local government is costly and extravagant and inefficient, and it is no use asking this House to continue to pour money into-London unless there is going to be some co-ordination of local government in London. You have twenty-eight boards of guardians receiving in one way or another contributions from the Exchequer. You have thirty-two-borough councils receiving grants, in one way or the other, indirectly from the London County Council, and then you have the Central (Unemployed) Body, the Metropolitan Water Board, and finally the London County Council as the educational authority. Each one of these bodies is, in my opinion, ineffectively carrying out, in many instances, the same kind of work and overlapping goes on in every district. It will be quite useless for the Government to appoint this Committee to consider the matter unless it is considered in relation to complete reform of local administration in London, both from the point of view of the Poor Law and of the other matters connected with local government. I will not pursue that any further, but that is the main reason why I think the Amendment ought to be carried. The whole subject has to be reconsidered, and we ought to have it reconsidered from that point of view, and therefore we ought not to have,

819
even after the Committee's report merely on one side of the question a definite settlement arrived at. That is why I propose to go into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite. But I want to say this to the credit of the Government, and there has not been enough made of it. The rates in the district that I represent, and I think also in Mile-End, will be considerably down. The rates in Poplar will be down 4d., because of the manner in which the Government are using the Land Tax. Although that is true, and I am very thankful it is so, at the same time I think the Government ought not in any way to give any more money to London or anywhere else, but especially to London, until you stop the fearful waste of overlapping that is going on in the Administration from the Poor Law right up to the London County Council, and I hope when-ever this Committee takes the matter in hand it will take it from that point of view.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I am pleased to agree with the hon. Member, and for the reason he has given. The reason was that the whole subject of local taxation in connection with the Exchequer is going to be undertaken by a Committee. If that is so, why not restrict the operation to the present year? We shall have the report before next year. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman agree to accept this Amendment on that ground, and if he likes, only on that ground, quite irrespective of the merits of the question which we on this side have been arguing. Now a word on the merits. I represent a large borough constituency, and the ratepayers there have felt very severely the burdens which have been imposed upon them by this House from time to time with respect to education. They fulfil those obligations up to the hilt. They have not shrunk in any way from them. They have spent money freely both on higher and secondary elementary education, and unfortunately the rates have gone up in consequence. The history of this money has been rather a chequered one. It was imposed by the Revenue Act of 1890. It was imposed at the rate of 3d. per barrel of thirty-six gallons on beer, and 6d. a gallon on spirits. But it was imposed with another object altogether, to provide compensation money in cases where licences were taken away from public houses. That object failed, and the money was diverted by the Government of the day to provide money for higher education. That has gone on
820
from 1890 to the present time. The Government now proposes that they shall take the proceeds of the money for 1909 and stereotype it.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present——
Mr. S. ROBERTS: I was referring to the proceeds of these duties in 1909, the year which the Government are taking. In the year 1909 the proceeds were the lowest in the last fourteen years. The highest year was 1908, when the proceeds were £1,333,000, that sum being £226,000 more than in 1909. It is a very serious thing to consider that the Government are proposing that they should take the increases in these duties. Then the Local Taxation Account is composed of another Department, namely, the proceeds of liquor licences and the proceeds of motor licences. Section 88 of the Finance Act of last year provides that—
"The proceeds of the duties on the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquor, and on licences for motor cars, imposed by this Act shall, so far as, respects the sums to be paid into any local taxation account out of the Consolidated Funds in respect thereof, be deemed, notwithstanding anything in that sub-section" [that is the sub-section of the Act, 1907] "to be the amount of the proceeds of the duties on these licences during the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine."
Therefore the Government have already stereotyped the amount, and they intend to take these proceeds, whatever these may be. The proceeds on licences for the sale of liquors, and especially on licences for motor cars, are likely to increase, and the Government are going to take not only any increase that may be produced in the whisky money, but also the increases over 1909 with respect to the licences on the sale of liquor and the licences on motor cars. Is not that an additional reason why we should press the Government to give way on this Amendment? I should like to appeal to them on the ground so well stated by the hon. Member below the Gangway. Is not that a good reason for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will accept this Amendment and restrict the operation of the Clause to the present year. If he will do that he will receive the thanks of those Gentlemen who have tried to put their case on this side of the

821
House, and I venture to say he will receive the thanks of the local authorities in this matter.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I listened with very great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and I join with other hon. Members in expressing regret that he has not been able to make any concession to the views stated on this side of the House. I did expect that after conferring with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister he would have come down to-day prepared to make some concession which would have been generally accepted by ourselves. He stated that he believed the arguments used on this side of the House would not find general acceptance outside in the country. I venture to think that when these arguments are brought home to the Members of our several local authorities they will find acceptance, and the right hon. Gentleman will discover that the local authorities are in full sympathy with those Members of the House who have pointed out the necessity of the Government doing something to increase the amount of the grants which those local authorities at the present moment receive. It is almost impossible to consider this Amendment to Clause 11 without some reference to Clause 10, and for this reason: Clause 11 stereotypes and absolutely fixes the amount of the Treasury Grant which is to be received in compensation for the Whisky Duties. It has always been held by the education authorities that the money they receive from the Whisky Duties should be an elastic and progressive sum, increasing with the larger burdens of expenditure which the local authorities are required to bear. It was in consequence of that belief and of the absolute necessity of affording a larger and gradually increasing sum to the local authorities that we on this side of the House succeeded in inducing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to amend the Finance Bill by providing that half of the Land Taxes were to be paid to the local authorities. It was generally understood that these duties would gradually increase with the increasing burdens of the local authorities, and they were consequently to some extent satisfied that the new taxes to be imposed—particularly the Increment Tax, which, we are always told, was the result of social changes and causes in which the individual has no part—should as to one-half belong to the local authorities.
822
What is the result of the Revenue Bill now before us? It proposes that the amount to be allotted to the local authorities should be absolutely fixed and stereotyped. Surely one would have expected that in proposing this Clause the Government would have taken care that the amount they were going to allocate would be at least equal, not to the smaller sum but to the larger sum which had accrued to the local authorities from those Whisky Duties. It is quite true that the amount during the past few years has been gradually lessening, and for that reason it was the duty of the Government to fix the amount on the average of the last ten years, if not at the amount of the largest sum received during that time. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman really appreciates the great need in which these local authorities find themselves. At the time when these Whisky Duties were first imposed it was suggested that some future Chancellor of the Exchequer might alter the allocation. I can only quote from memory, but I remember quite well that the late Lord Goschen, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in this House that, provided the local authorities used this money for the purpose of higher education, he doubted whether any Chancellor of the Exchequer would ever have the courage to withhold them from the local authorities. What has the present Chancellor of the Exchequer done I He is now withholding the duties from the local authorities, and he is giving them instead a grant and considerably less than the amount they have received in past years. I cannot understand how it is that, after having taken away half of the duties on the Land Taxes which everybody expected would go to the local authorities, he should now come down to the House and by an Amendment of the late Budget ask us to assent to a contribution from the Exchequer considerably less than the amount which in former years they had received. I am quite certain that if the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has very great sympathy with educational matters, were fully aware of the difficulties in which the local authorities are placed by the increased burdens they have to bear, he would be more disposed at the present time to make some concession on this question. I thought that the appeal of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) was a very urgent one, and I sympathise fully with the protest he made. I know quite well

823
that the various teachers in Ireland are paid lamentably small salaries, far less than would enable them properly to discharge their duties. I know also from my own experience that there are local authorities in this country, who, unable to lessen the gradually increasing expenditure on elementary education, are therefore reducing the sum applicable to secondary and higher education. This is very much to be regretted. I know one of the largest local authorities which for the purposes of economy has been compelled to discharge some of its local inspectors. When one is obliged to economise one thinks of those expenses which can be most easily dispensed with. They are not able to discharge their teachers, but they are discharging their inspectors. The consequence is that the teaching may not be as good as it otherwise might be. Everybody on both sides of the House knows that the salaries of assistant masters in our secondary schools are far less than they ought to be, and that their teachers are unable out of their salaries to make sufficient provision——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is dealing with the way in which the money is spent. He cannot be allowed to deal with those questions.
Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I quite admit that I may be wandering a little wide, but I was anxious to enlist the right hon. Gentleman's sympathies. I want to impress him with some of the necessities of these local authorities and their difficulties in making ends meet with the amount at their disposal. I conclude by again appealing to the Secretary to the Treasury to make at least the concession suggested by my hon. Friend who has last spoken, and to assent to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. MOUNT: The Secretary to the Treasury has justified this Clause in the Bill by stating that there are no abnormal circumstances in the year 1908 which he has taken for the purpose of arriving at the amount of the grant. But I cannot help thinking after all that the best judges of this Clause are the local authorities who look not so much to the question whether there were any abnormal circumstances by the year which he has taken, but to the question what were the figures in that year and how they compare with the figures for previous years in regard
824
to this matter. It has been pointed out by many speakers that the amount that year was lower by some £300,000. There is one point which I think has not received sufficient attention. I object to the principle which underlies this Clause of giving a fixed Grant instead of an assigned revenue. It ought not to be encouraged, and for this reason. The Grant, when originally fixed, it is assumed, bears some relation to the needs of local authorities. But there is a tendency on the part, I am afraid, of every Government, and especially of this Government, with its business mortgaged so far ahead, to let the matter slide and leave things as they are. What we have found is that when a sum is once fixed it remains fixed, while the expenses of the local authorities are always increasing. In the Agricultural Rates Act you have an instance of the mistake of giving a fixed Grant for the purposes of local taxation.
I do not suppose that anyone, whatever his views may be with regard to the Agricultural Rates Act, objects to the reduction of the rates on agricultural land by one-half, but the objection to the Act is the fact that the amount given by the Exchequer is not sufficient to meet deficiencies under the Act. The rates at that time averaged 2s. 2d. in the pound. Now they are over 4s. 1d. in the pound, and the amount, £1,300,000 for England, which is granted to meet the deficiency under the Agricultural Rates Act ought to be at least £2,500,000. The same thing will happen here. You are going to fix this particular sum of money for the needs of the local authorities, who are bound to have increasing burdens placed upon them in order to meet the services which they have got to carry out, and you will find the same sense of injustice which is met with in the Agricultural Rates Act as a result of the proposal now brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a fixed sum instead of an increasing sum. Some consideration should be given to this point by the Treasury Bench, and I hope, even if they are not able to accept this Amendment, they will shorten the time during which this sum is fixed, and that at an early date they will introduce the principle of an increasing amount.
Mr. PEEL: I regret as much as anybody else that the right hon. Gentleman sitting on that bench (Mr. Hobhouse) is the only one here to deal with us. I do not think that he quite appreciates the force of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand division

825
(Mr. Walter Long) when he lamented the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not that the right hon. Gentleman is not perfectly capable of setting out the views of the Government and of giving a very luminous statement thereof. But what he cannot do, of course, is to take the responsibility on himself of making concessions. He tells us these matters have been fully discussed between himself, the Prime Minister, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are discussed outside the House, and the right hon. Gentleman is sent down to tell us what is the fiat of those two distinguished gentlemen. One cannot be here, but the other does not come down to back up his subordinate. After all, does not this suggest that no argument can be brought forward from these benches or no discussion in the House of Commons can have any effect whatever on the mind of the Government. The reason is very simple; because, however much we might convert the right hon. Gentleman sitting on those benches—and I am not sure that he is not converted already by what has been said—he is tied, he is a tied House, he is absolutely unable to make the smallest sympathetic concession for fear that the suggestion even of concession might be interpreted against him and that he might be hauled over the coals by his masters, who do not come down to the House of Commons at all. Nor can the Government pretend that on this occasion they are so thoroughly seized with the whole subject that no possible argument could have any effect on their minds. Because only the other day we were told they are appointing the Committee to look into the whole matter of the relations between local and Imperial taxation.
I pointed out at the time that they had had a Commission on which my hon. Friend below me sat, and which went exhaustively into the whole matter. The Government cannot claim, therefore, that they have got an absolute monopoly of knowledge on the subject, and they themselves say there are many things which they do not properly understand, while they send their excellent Mercury down here in order to convey to us what are their wishes and what are their financial decisions? The right hon. Gentleman himself has used arguments as to the stereotyping of the grants which are not very satisfactory to the unfortunate victims, the local authorities. Speaking for myself, as representative of one of those smaller boroughs which played a very great part in the constitutional
826
history of this country, I may state that the borough to which I refer has suffered particularly hard treatment at the hands of the Exchequer. There has been a continuous drop for many years, and it is said that the people are drinking less whisky, but whether or not the drop is due to what is called the wave of temperance coming over the country—which necessitates apparently a fresh Bill dealing with the licensing question—I do not know, but we do know that the diminution affects the local chancellor of the exchequer. I have attended a great number of deputations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for further contributions towards some of these local services, and I know almost by heart his reply. He is always going to deal with the subject exhaustively; therefore, he is not going to make any concessions now, but that he expected to make a full statement of his harmonised and balanced proposals in a very short time. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to make any change which affects the Exchequer in any way he should, in the meantime, surely turn the balance a little in favour of the local authorities.
Surely during this interregnum—and the Government are fond of interregnums—you should not weight the balance against the local authorities. I must say that if the local authorities have to wait very many years until this particular change takes place, then the Government, during the period of waiting should at least not make further encroachments on the exchequers of the local authorities. There is already a great deal of irritation among the local authorities caused by the extraordinary action of the Government in connection with the Land Tax. Twice the luscious fruit has been held to their lips, and twice it has been withdrawn; and if, on the top of that, you are going to still further penalise them, then I am afraid their irritation will rise almost to indignation. It is perfectly true that this is a temporary arrangement, but I distrust these temporary arrangements. I will give an example why. Since the year 1888 a temporary arrangement has been made as regards London municipal finance. That has gone on during twenty-two years, and during all that time both sides of the London County Council have year after year sent deputations to the Government and asked for some remedy to be given to their grievance. Twenty-two years is a pretty long time for a temporary arrangement, and therefore I am justified

827
in saying that there is great anxiety among the local authority lest this temporary arrangement which is now under consideration should slip into the category of a permanent arrangement. After all, I think there is very great danger in these temporary arrangements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say on a future occasion, in considering the whole question, "We took this basis and fixed it two or three years ago, and I take it that this was done not only by the sagacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but possibly by general agreement of the House." The local authorities naturally feel great anxiety on the whole subject, and they feel that it is going to be based on a year which is unfortunate for them. We are always told that the whole matter is going to be reconsidered. But a new difficulty has slipped in. We know that next year and the year after have been mortgaged for other measures already promised, and yesterday there was another Bill promised to deal with the licensing question. If we are to have only a five years' Parliament, with only four years from this Session, that really means, as far as this Parliament is concerned, that it will be absolutely impossible for the Government to deal with the question of local taxation. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this declaration of the Prime Minister puts it absolutely out of the power of the Government in the present Parliament to deal with this grievance of local taxation. Therefore we cannot accept the statement that this arrangement is merely temporary. It must inevitably, in the end, be a permanent arrangement, and it is for that reason that we must protest with all our force and all our energy on behalf of the local authorities against having the small amount of money to which they are entitled filched away from them.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I appeal to the Committee, now that we have discussed this Amendment for two-and-a-half hours, to bring the Debate to a close and come to a decision upon it, in view of the fact that there are other Amendments on the Paper to be considered.
Mr. SPEAR: I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment for various reasons. The burden of the taxes on the local ratepayer is becoming so great that unless he has some relief extended to him from Imperial resources the efficiency of any system of education
828
will be interfered with. It is unfortunate that just at the time when the pressure is being felt most acutely by the ratepayer the Government should propose an arrangement which will result in increasing the pressure upon local bodies. I think we ought to receive from the Imperial Exchequer, for this work of education, Grants which are an increase upon those which have hitherto been enjoyed. I would press the point that the local authorities were anxiously looking forward and bearing their burdens with some equanimity in the hope of half of the Land Taxes. It is, I submit, most important and incumbent on the Government to increase rather than diminish the assistance from the Imperial Exchequer towards education. It is a serious and alarming fact that the rates in the rural district have increased from 2s. 2d. to 4s. 7d. in the £, and in the urban districts, though the percentage of increase is not quite so great, even there it is very serious indeed. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember just at this time the great increase that is falling on the rates through the education authorities in the counties carrying out the direction of the Board of Education with reference to the exclusion of children from schools on medical grounds. Therefore, it is most inopportune and unfair that at this time the Government should propose by this Clause to add still further to the burden of the ratepayers by refusing this Amendment which would secure to them in the future at least as much from the Imperial Exchequer as they had hitherto enjoyed. It is desirable to aid good and efficient secondary education. I certainly am in favour of it, but may I mention that the bulk of the ratepayers do not get any advantage from secondary education, and hence they are rather averse to money being spent from the rates for that purpose, unless we can remove that tendency to be bitter towards the development of secondary education, then I venture to say that secondary education will suffer much in consequence. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of those three points, because education is a national object and ought to be paid for more largely out of the National Exchequer than local rates, and because of the increased cost through the exclusion of children on medical grounds, and because of the disappointment which the local authorities felt at not receiving one-half of the Land Taxes, that he will meet us with some sympathy and give some encouragement

829
to the development of secondary education by accepting the Amendment.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have no desire to prolong this discussion, but I really think that the attitude of the Government towards the local authorities is a strong reason why the Government, test. I attempted to speak on Clause 10 which the Government chose to take in the middle of the night, but I was closured, although I——
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The action of the House as to the Closure is not to be criticised.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was merely justifying the fact that notwithstanding the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman I venture to say a few words on this particular Amendment, because I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the local authorities all over England and Wales and Scotland, to say nothing of Ireland, take the greatest interest in this matter quite irrespective of party. They feel that they are being exceedingly badly treated by the Government. I represent a very large borough, one of the largest industrial boroughs in England that has got a single Member, and a borough which has expended large sums on education. It is a very progressive borough, but it has been very hard hit. Owing to the fact that the rateable value is low, it depends very largely on what help it can get from the central Government. I have been particularly asked by my friends there to protest against the proposition of the Government, which is to stereotype the amount towards educational instruction on the proceeds of one year, which happens not to be a particularly favourable year from the point of view of the local authorities. I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke at some length, but it is a curious thing that he never told us whether he was going to accept this Amendment or not. For the life of me I say I do not know whether he is or not. Perhaps he may, after all, and if only he had said so he could have cut this discussion very short. I am afraid, from the tenor of his remarks, that his intention is not to do so. I notice that he took credit to the Government for what they had done, and said how could you object to this Clause and why do you want it amended because the Government are making up a deficiency and giving the local authorities a sum of about £600,000.
830
Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers who created the deficiency. If it had not been for the absurd finance of the Government in imposing upon a falling revenue for spirits a duty that it could not possibly bear there would not have been this deficiency. If there had not been this deficiency the right hon. Gentleman could not have taken credit to the Government for their generosity in making up a deficiency. He then told us that the revenue-from spirits had been a falling revenue, and that, therefore, when the Government take the year 1908–9, they are really doing much better for the local authorities than if they had allowed the revenue to continue to fall, by which means the local authorities would have got less than the Government propose. The year fact that the revenue has been a falling revenue, and that the money is devoted to technical and secondary education, which is a constantly-growing charge is a strong reason why the Government, instead of taking one bad year should have taken an average of years, and given the local authorities therefore a larger sum than they will get out of the present proposal.
The real fact is as the right hon. Gentleman must see, that it is absolutely necessary that we should have a complete alteration in the system of local taxation. You expect the local authorities to go forward, and they are going forward with a progressive educational policy, and yon make them depend on a revenue which you see is a falling revenue; and in order to put it right you take one, and that the worst out of the whole series of years, and seeing that it is a growing charge you make the local authorities depend on what the proceeds happened to be in that bad year. The Amendment before the Committee is absolutely important and absolutely to the point with regard to the matter of which I have been speaking. It is that while we accept the proposal of the Government as far as it goes for the present year, we ask that in future another system should be brought into vogue. We are quite prepared to accept the Government's proposition with regard to the present year. We admit that, in making up the deficiency, they are doing something for us, although we do not think they are doing as much as they ought to do. But we object entirely to the idea that this one very bad year should be the standard year for all time to come. I have put down an Amendment with the view of limiting this particular part of the

831
Clause to some extent. I do not know whether the Government will accept it; at all events the point is that, having regard to the fact that the charges are growing charges, it is absolutely wrong that the contribution of the Government should be limited to a particular year. The Mover of the Amendment has given figures showing that the cost of the services to which the assigned revenues were originally given have gone up by 55.8 per cent., while in the same time the actual increase in the assigned revenues is only 18.7 per cent. In other words, the local ratepayer has to bear every year a much larger share of the cost of these services, many of which are really national in character. Under these circumstances it is only natural that we should ask that the contribution of the Government should increase as the cost of the services goes up. If we could establish that principle we should be perfectly satisfied, but the Government take exactly the opposite point of view, and defeat the original intention of the assigned revenues. When the late Lord Goschen introduced the principle of assigned revenues, he laid it down that as the cost of the services went up there would be a natural increase in
the assigned revenues. That, after all, is a sound principle.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I would point out that this identical observation has been repeated several times.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I was not in the House, and I had not heard the remark made. I will merely add that it was understood that the assigned revenues should increase, and we protest emphatically against any attempt to stereotype the amount. It is absolutely essential that something should be done to assist the local authorities, who in a truly progressive spirit are trying to carry out their duties, educational and otherwise, but who will be unable to do so if, instead of being increased as the cost of the services goes up, this contribution is stereotyped at a fixed amount. For these reasons I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
Mr. HOBHOUSE Mr. HOBHOUSE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 117.

Division No. 77.]

AYES.

[2.50 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hayden, John Patrick

Acland, Francis D. (Camborne)

Dawes, James Arthur

Henry, Sir Charles

Alden, Percy

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

Dickinson, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Dillon, John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Anderson, A. M.

Donelan, Captain A.

Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Armitage, Robert

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Barnes, George N.

Elverston, Harold

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Beale, William Phipson

Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

Johnson, William

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Essex, Richard Walter

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jowett, Frederick William

Bentham, George Jackson

Farrell, James Patrick

Joyce, Michael

Boland, John Plus

Fenwick, Charles

Keating, Matthew

Booth, Frederick Handel

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Kellaway, Frederick George

Brace, William

Ffrench, Peter

Kemp, Sir George

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Field, William

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Brunner, John F. L.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

Bryce, John Annan

Gill, Alfred Henry

Lansbury, George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Glanville, Harold James

Lewis, John Herbert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Goldstone, Frank

Lundon, Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Lyell, C. H.

Cameron, Robert

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Guest, Major (Pembroke)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Chapple, Dr. William Alien

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

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hackett, John

MacGhee, Richard

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Maclean, Donald

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hancock, John George

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Corbett, A. Cameron

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

Crawshay-Williams, E.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Crooks, William

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

Marks, George Croydon

Crumley, Patrick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Davies, Timothy (Louth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

Menzies, Sir Walter

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Reddy, Michael

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Verney, Sir H.

Mooney, John J

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Wadsworth, John

Morgan, George Hay

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Walsh, Stephen (Lancashire, Ince)

Morrell, Philip

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

Muldoon, John

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wardle, George J.

Nelison, Francis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Nolan, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Norman, Sir Henry

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Norton, Capt. C. W. (Newington, W.)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Watt, Henry A.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Webb, H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Wedgwood, Josiah C

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool, Scot'd.)

Rowlands, James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ogden, Fred

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Whitehouse, John Howard

O'Grady, James

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

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

O'Malley, William

Scanlan, Thomas

Wilkie, Alexander

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

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehy, David

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

O'Shee, James John

Shortt, Edward

Williamson, Sir Archibald

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

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

Pearce, Robert (Leek)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Strachey, Sir E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Sutherland, John E.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Pointer, Joseph

Sutton, John E.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Tennant, Harold John

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

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

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Pringle, William M. R.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Peto, Basil Edward

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fletcher, John S. (Hampstead)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gardner, Ernest

Quilter, William Eley C.

Astor, Waldorf

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baird, John Lawrence

Goldsmith, Frank

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

Harris, H. P.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Rolleston, Sir John

Baldwin, Stanley

Helmsley, Viscount

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

Royds, Edmund

Barnston, Harry

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Sanders, Robert Arthur

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

Hills, John Waller (Durham)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Welts)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Spear, John Ward

Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

Stanier, Beville

Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hunt, Rowland

Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bigland, Alfred

Kerr-Smiley, Poter Kerr

Starkey, John Ralph

Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

Kerry, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Boyton, James

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stewart, Gershom

Brassey, H. L. C.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Bridgeman, William Clive

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Burn, Col. C R. (Torquay)

Lawson, Hon. Harry (Mile End)

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Campion, W. R.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Valentia, Viscount

Carille, Edward Hlldred

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cassel, Felix

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Cautley, Henry Strother

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

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Cave, George

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Mount, William Arthur

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Newdegate, F. A. N.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Newman, John R. P.

Weimer, Viscount

Courthope, George Loyd

Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Worthington-Evans, L.

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Younger, George

Croft, Henry Page

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Dixon, Charles Harvey

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

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

Doughty, Sir George

Perkins, Walter Frank

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 129.

Division No. 78.]

AYES.

[3.0 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Armltage, Robert

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Alden, Percy

Anderson, Ardrew Macbeth

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Price, Sir Robert J.

Beale, W. P.

Henry, Sir Charles S.

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

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pringle, William M. R.

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

Higham, John Sharp

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Bentham, G. J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

Boland, John Plus

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Reddy, Michael

Booth, Frederick Handel

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Brunner, John F. L.

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bryce, J. Annan

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Robinson, Sidney

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

Joyce, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Byles, William Pollard

Keating, Matthew

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Cameron, Robert

Kellaway, Frederick George

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kemp, Sir George

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Rowlands, James

Clancy, John Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Scan Ian, Thomas

Corbett, A. Cameron

Lundon, Thomas

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheehy, David

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Shortt, Edward

Crooks, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Crumley, Patrick

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

MacGhee, Richard

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

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

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Strachey, Sir Edward

Davies M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

M'Callum, John M

Sutherland, John E.

Dawes, J. A.

M'Curdy. Charles Albert

Sutton, John E.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dickinson, W. H.

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Tennant, Harold John

Dillon, John

Marks, George Croydon

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Donelan, Captain A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)

Meagher, Michael

Verney, Sir Harry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

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

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Moiteno, Percy Alport

Walters, John Tudor

Elverston, Harold

Money, L. G Chiozza

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Mooney, John J.

Wardle, George J.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Morgan, George Hay

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Essex, Richard Walter

Morrell, Philip

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmanntn)

Esslemont, Georqe Birnie

Muldoon, John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Farrell, James Patrick

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

Watt, Henry A.

Fenwick, Charles

Neilson, Francis

Webb, H.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Nolan, Joseph

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ffrench, Peter

Norman, Sir Henry

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

Field, William

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitehouse, John Howard

Gill, A. H.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whyte, A. F.

Glanville, Harold James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilkie, Alexander

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Ogden, Fred

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

O'Grady. James

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

O'Malley, William

Williamson, Sir A.

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

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

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

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.)

Hackett, John

O'Shee. James John

Wilson, John (Durham. Mid)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, W. T. Westhonghton)

Hancock, J. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Pointer, Joseph

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

Cassel, Felix

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cautley, Henry Strother

Ashlev, Wilfrid W.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Cave, George

Astor, Waldorf

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Clive, Percy Archer

Baird, John Lawrence

Bigland, Alfred

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Boscawen, Col. A. S. T. Griffith-

Courthope, George Loyd

Balcarres, Lord

Boyton, James

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Baldwin, Stanley

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Craig, Norman (Kent, Tnanet)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bridgeman, W. Olive

Craik, Sir Henry

Baring, Cant. Hon. Guy Victor

Burn, Celonel C. R.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Barnes, George N.

Butcher, John George

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Barnston, H.

Campion, W. R.

Croft, Henry Page

836

837

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Doughty, Sir George

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Sanderson, Lancelot

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Spear, John Ward

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Stanier, Beville

Gardner, Ernest

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Newdegate, F. A.

Starkey, John Ralph

Goldsmith, Frank

Newman, John R. P.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Goldstone, Frank

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Stewart, Gershom

Gretton, John

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Thorne, William (West Ham.)

Harris, Henry Percy

Norton-Griffiths, J.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

Tobin, Alfrel Aspinall

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Valentia, Viscount

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

Hills, John Waller

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

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

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Perkins, Walter Frank

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Home, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Peto, Basil Edward

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Hunt, Rowland

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Weimer, Viscount

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Jowett, Frederick William

Quilter, W. E. C.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Rawlinson, John Fredorick Peel

Worthington-Evans, L.

Kerry, Earl of

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Kimber, Sir Henry

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Rolleston, Sir John

Younger, George

Lane-Fox, G R.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Lansbury, George

Rothschild, Lionel de

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

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

Royds, Edmund

Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "year" ["shall in the current and every subsequent financial year"], to insert the words "until Parliament otherwise determine."
The CHAIRMAN: I think this Amendment is in order if confined to its drafting effect; but it raises questions similar to that of the last Amendment, and there cannot be another general discussion, as the matter has already been discussed.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I have no desire to discuss the question raised by the last Amendment, but I ask the Government to insert the words here as they did in Clause 10.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I accept the Amendment.
Colonel GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: All I want to say is that I do not myself think the words mean very much, but the Government choose to put them into Clause 10 in order to make the local authorities think there would be a reconsideration of that Clause, and if the local authorities are to be allowed to think there is to be a reconsideration of Clause 10 there is no reason why these words should not be inserted in Clause 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 125.

Division No. 79.]

AYES.

[3.8 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Alden, Percy

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

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Byles, William Pollard

Eilbank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Cameron, Robert

Elverston, Harold

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Clancy, John Joseph

Essex, Richard Walter

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Barnes, G. N.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Fenwick, Charles

Beale, W. P.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Beauchamp, Edward

Crawshay-Willlams, Eliot

Ffrench, Peter

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Crooks, William

Field, William

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

Crumley, Patrick

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bentham, George Jackson

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Boland, John Plus

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Glanville, Harold James

Booth, Frederick Handel

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

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Brace, William

Dawes, J. A.

Goldstone, Frank

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Greenwood, Granville G. (peterboroagh)

Brunner, John F. L.

Dickinson, W. H.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Bryce, John Annan

Dillon, John

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Donelan, Captain A.

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

Hackett, John

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

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Hancock, John George

Molteno, Percy Alport

Scanlan, Thomas

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Mooney, John J.

Sheehy, David

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

Morgan, George Hay

Shortt, Edward

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

Muldoon, John

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheres)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Neilson, Francis

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Nolan, Joseph

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Norman, Sir Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Sutherland, John E.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sutton, John E.

Higham, John Sharp

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Tennant, Harold John

Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Ogden, Fred

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Grady, James

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Hudson, Walter

O'Malley, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Verney, Sir Harry

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wadsworth, J.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Shee, James John

Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Johnson, W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wardle, G. J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Jowett, Frederick William

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

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Joyce, Michael

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Keating, Matthew

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Watt, Henry A.

Kellaway, Frederick George

Pointer, Joseph

Webb, H.

Kemp, Sir George

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lansbury, George

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

Whitehouse, John Howard

Lewis, John Herbert

Pringle, William M. R.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Lundon, Thomas

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Wilkie, Alexander

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Reddy, Michael

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Macdonaid, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Williamson, Sir A.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

MacGhee, Richard

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Wilson, W. T (Westhoughton)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Young, William (Perth, East)

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

Robinson, Sidney

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Marks, George Croydon

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Meagher, Michael

Rowlands, James

NOES.

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

Courthope, George Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Astor, Waldorf

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Croft, Henry Page

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

Baird, John Lawrence

Dairymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Malcolm, Ian

Balcarres, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

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

Baldwin, Stanley

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mount, William Arthur

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Barnston, H.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Newman, John R. P.

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

Forster, Henry William

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gardner, Ernest

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Goldman, Charles Sydney

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

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Goldsmith, Frank

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

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Gretton, John

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Harris, Henry Percy

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Bigland, Alfred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Boyton, James

Helmsley, Viscount

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Perkins, Walter Frank

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Peto, Basil Edward

Butcher, John George

Hills, John Waller

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Campion, W. R.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carille, Edward Hildred

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cautley, Henry Strother

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Rolleston, Sir John

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Kerry, Earl of

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Clive, Percy Archer

Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Rothschild, Lionel de

Coopery Richard Ashmole

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Royds, Edmund

840

841

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Valentia, Viscount

Worthington-Evans, L.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Spear, John Ward

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

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Stanier, Seville

Weigall, Capt. A G.

Younger, George

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

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

Starkey, John Ralph

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Stewart, Gershom

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Weimer, Viscount

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

CLAUSE 12.—(Extension of s. 88 of 10 Edw. 7, c. 8 to all carriage licences.)
(i) So much of sub-section (2) of section eighty-eight of the principal Act as provides for the payment of a part of the proceeds of the duties on licences for motor cars in England and Wales into the Exchequer, and for the payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the council of a county or borough of any deficiency in the proceeds of those duties, shall extend to the proceeds of the duties on all carriage licences (whether licences for motor cars or not), and that provision shall be construed accordingly.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907, or in sub-section (1) of section eighty-eight of the principal Act, the sum to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund into the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1907, in respect of the proceeds of the duties on carriage licences, shall be the amount of the proceeds of those duties during the year ending the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nine.
(3) Section ninety of the principal Act (which relates to the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of a sum equal to the net proceeds of the duties on motor spirit and motor car licences as the road improvement grant) shall be construed as if a reference to the duties on carriage licences were substituted in that section for the references to the duties on licences for motor cars which were affected by that Act and to the duties payable on licences for motor cars.
(4) In this section, the expression "duties on carriage licences" means the duties on all licences for carriages, including any duty charged under sub-section (1) of Section eight of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, and any duty charged under section eighty-six of the principal Act in respect of motor-cars.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
I have put this Amendment down in order to get a definition of what the Clause
842
means. As I understand it, under the Act of 1910, the local authorities were given power to collect the duties on licences for motor-cars, and any sum collected by them in excess of the amount realised in 1909 was to be handed over to the Treasury in future years. I understand that the same principle is being adopted now. There is an idea that the number of carriages will be reduced in proportion as the use of motor-cars increases. Under the Act of 1910 the local authority was given £40,000 a year towards the expense of collecting the duties on motor-car and carriage licences. That sum was intended to be sufficient for collecting these duties, but as a matter of fact it has cost the local authorities more than £40,000, and although they are collecting an increased revenue from the motor-car duties the profit is not going to them but to the Treasury. I think it is only fair when the local authorities are spending their own money that the Treasury ought to give them a larger grant than the £40,000 which was supposed to cover the expense of collecting the duties. I ask whether, on the Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to put down some Amendment on behalf of the Government which would give the local authority a larger sum, or else give them the actual cost of the collection of the duties, the product of which goes to swell the pockets of the Treasury. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory assurance on that point, and, perhaps, he will inform me whether the interpretation I have put upon the Clause is a right one.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The interpretation which the hon. Member has put upon this Clause is quite accurate. Up to the year 1889 county councils received the amount realisable by the licences upon cars and carriages, and on the 1st January, 1909, they began to collect these duties themselves. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 the duties upon motor-cars were raised very considerably, and the increased part of the duties so raised was paid to the Road Board. This situation arises. The county councils still get the yield in connection with the motor-car

843
licences up to a certain point, but inasmuch carriages have decreased in popularity as motor-cars have increased, there has been a certain transfer of licences from the side of carriages to the side of motor-cars. If the carriage licences had increased as formerly the whole of it would have gone to the county council. As the increase of yield in motor-car licences was limited, the county councils got no advantage from the increased number of licences taken out by motor-car owners, and they were losing a certain amount of revenue in the case of diminution in the number of carriage licences. We desire to remedy the loss which is being entailed on the county council by the decrease in the number of carriage licences taken out. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, he said that there was an increase in the cost of collection on the part of county councils which entailed upon them a greater burden than that for which they received compensation. I had a Very interesting communication sent to me the other day from the Wiltshire County Council showing that a considerable amount of revenue actually accrued to that county owing to the amount of compensation paid and the small cost of the collection of these licences. Whatever may be the case in some counties there is another side of the picture which is to the advantage of the county councils. Section 2 applies the same treatment to Scotland as is applied by Section 1 to England, the only difference being that in Scotland the collection is made through the agencies of the Post Office and the Customs and Excise Offices. There being no carriage licences in Ireland, the Motor Car Duties there collected go straight to the Exchequer, also through the same agency. There is, therefore, no need to have a section applying it to Ireland. I trust the explanation I have given is clear and satisfactory to the Committee.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Do I understand that the amount which is stereotyped is the lump sum and not the amount per head?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Oh, no.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That is where the unfairness comes in. The duty of collecting these licences has been handed over to the county councils, and they have done the work extremely well and have taken immense trouble about it. Acting as they thought for themselves and in the hope of increasing the local revenue, they have
844
created the machinery, and, to the knowledge of every Member of this House, they have exercised great vigilance and activity in obtaining the full sum payable. The local authority, through its local knowledge, can more easily do this than a central authority. Having encouraged them to set the machinery in motion in the hope that they were going to benefit the revenue of the localities for which they were responsible, the Treasury now turn round upon them and say, "We will stereotype the figure which you have actually raised in a single year—1908–9—and we will give you no hope of any future profits." It is like throwing a bone to a dog. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] It is no better. The Treasury say, "We will just give you the actual loss through the reduction in the carriage licences." That is what the Clause does and nothing else. It is giving them an actual loss. Supposing the county council were under the old system, before the Budget was passed, obtaining duties on, say, 1,000 carriages and 500 motor-cars. Two things happen. First of all, the duty on the motor-cars is raised in amount, and, secondly, the carriage licences are rapidly being reduced and the motor licences are rapidly increasing. You would have some case for saying the counties shall take the whole of the old Licence Duty on the increased number of motor-cars; but that is not what you do.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member must have reference to the Section of the Principal Act. The amount to be paid in respect of motor licences was stereotyped in that Section as the amount of the proceeds of the licences during 1909, and we now put the carriage licences on exactly the same footing as the motor licences.
Mr. PRETYMAN: Under Section 88 of the Principal Act the whole of the licences which they collected for motors was to go to them?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; the whole of the carriage licences, but not the whole of the motor licences. There was a falling off in the case of the carriage licences. We tried to put a stop to that and to place local authorities in exactly the same position as they were in in 1908–9, and to put them in exactly the same position as they were in in 1909–10 in respect of motor-cars.
Mr. PRETYMAN: That was where the injustice was done. This is an amendment of the Principal Act. Before that Act was passed, the whole of the licences collected by the local authorities went to them.

845
When the Act of 1909–10 was passed you stereotyped a certain amount of the motor licences. That in itself is an injustice. Now the county councils are to have all the trouble of collecting the whole of the licences, both for motors and carriages, and they will only receive a fixed sum in return. However the motors in any district may increase, they will receive nothing more than the stereotyped sum fixed by this Clause. The local authorities greatly object to that. I have received communications from the borough of Chelmsford, for instance, in which they give the actual figures they have received and the expenses they have incurred, showing a somewhat serious loss under this Act. Surely, if you appoint an agent to collect your revenue, it is a mere ordinary business principle that his remuneration should bear some proportion to the revenue he succeeds in collecting. I should have thought it would have been in the interests of the Treasury, and would have been a far sounder and fairer principle to have allowed the local authorities some proportion of the licences they collect, especially in the case of motors. I admit Section 1 of Clause 12 is a concession to the local authorities, and I accept it as such, but I protest against a thing being called a concession which is merely a repayment of some loss which was never contemplated when the original legislation was proposed. That is really not a concession; it is merely ordinary justice. If the local authorities had been told at the time the provision was originally made that they were being assigned a falling revenue, the provision would clearly have had to take some other form. It was not contemplated the revenue would be falling, and in this case the revenue is not falling; it is a growing revenue.
Contrast the treatment here with the treatment under the last provision we have been discussing. We were then discussing a falling revenue. When there is a falling revenue the Government share with the local authorities, but, when they come to deal with a rising revenue, then the local authorities are to receive a stereotyped amount and have no share in it. The Treasury deal with local authorities in a very niggardly spirit, and the inequitable character of the burdens borne by the local authorities is generally recognised. This House is constantly forcing increased expenditure upon the local authorities, and the provision the Treasury make to meet that increasing expenditure
846
is grossly insufficient. I hope the Government will further consider this matter and see whether they cannot, on Report, agree to some suggestion by which the local authorities might obtain a share in an increasing revenue they themselves have to collect.
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I rise to say a few words in support of the proposal of my hon. Friend in regard to the collection of these Licence Duties. I think it is an increasing burden on the county councils, because, hitherto, they have had to collect on a fixed basis. They are now collecting on a different basis and one which is more expensive. The right hon. Gentleman said he had had a communication from the county of Wiltshire to the effect that they had got additional money as their share of the £4,000 grant in this matter. I have here the figures prepared by the County Councils Association showing the results of the collection for the last year, and I find that only two out of the whole of the counties of England have made any profit upon it. The counties of Wiltshire and Flintshire have done so, but in every other county there has been a loss, and in the case of Somersetshire the cost of collection has involved a loss of something like £1,200. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has referred only to the counties which have made a profit.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I said I was only instancing the case of a county which came to my notice three days ago.
Sir R. BAKER: The right hon. Gentle-man rather led the House to infer that it was the general state of affairs, whereas we know that in nearly every county the collection has been carried on at a heavy loss. If the right hon. Gentleman will only look at the figures he will see that there is a real case made out for a share in this increased grant. There is also the question of the collection on the basis of horse power. That, I suggest, has also proved to be much more expensive. He told us there was no need to do anything with regard to Ireland in this matter. I did not quite gather the exact reason for that, but I understand that he based it on the ground that the English county councils got 2½ per cent. on the total collection, whereas Ireland is getting double that.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: There are no carriage licence duties there.
Sir R. BAKER: At any rate I think if the right hon. Gentleman will study these figures he will see that a good case is made out for giving an increased grant to the county councils in this matter in order to remedy a proved injustice.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I hope that, in fairness to the county council, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make some concession, and, therefore, may I throw out some suggestion as to an equitable basis on which such an allowance might be made, and that is that the allowance for collection made to the local authorities should be based on a proportion of the amount collected.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: On a point of Order. This sum of money to which reference has been made is entirely outside the operation of this Clause, and I submit that we are not entitled to discuss it.
Mr. C. BATHURST: But the right hon. Gentleman has already argued the point, and he himself cited the ease of Wiltshire.
The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, when he cited that case, specifically stated that he was not sure whether or not the point arose. In regard to the main point I do not think we can discuss details. I do not see my way to rule it entirely out of order, as it does affect the bargain which has been made, and which is one of the considerations to be taken into account.
Mr. C. BATHURST: I think an equitable way of meeting the existing injustice will be for the Treasury to allow the local authorities some definite proportion of the amount collected by them. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman has any objection to such a scheme. I would further draw his attention to the case of a county which is a purely agricultural county in which there are comparatively few rich men with motor-cars. There are, on its borders, large cities and towns, and the tendency is for persons living in the county to take out their licences for motor-cars when they go into those towns for business purposes, and, consequently, these duties are largely lost to the county, and are not taken into account in reckoning the amount contributed by the county. It may happen that in Wiltshire the amount received for collection is rather more than the amount actually expended. I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he
848
has any objection to putting the matter on a perfectly equitable basis, and to making the grants for this purpose proportionate to the amount collected.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I point out that London suffers peculiarly under this Clause. There is not the least doubt that the cost of collection in London has been always large, and will be larger than ever. There is a loss of £8,000 on the collection, and all of that has to be paid out of the rates. It is quite obvious that we are deprived of the natural expansion of revenue on motor-cars which ought to, but does not, go to the relief of the ratepayers. I hope I may again press the right hon. Gentleman to remember that the case of London is peculiarly hard, and that under these circumstances the claims of London will be heard before this unsatisfactory Committee.
Dr. HILLIER: I think the real objection to this Amendment is that, while it professes to redress grievances on the part of the county councils, it does not really meet the requirements due to the changed conditions of the times. We have the fact that the county councils in very many instances have to meet heavy increased charges in connection with the collection of these licence duties, and that those heavy expenses are likely to increase, while the county councils will derive no advantage from the addition to the revenue. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should bear its share of the increased charges for the wear and tear of the roads, the upkeep of which is a charge on the ratepayers. This Clause, in common with its predecessors, strikes one more blow at the ratepayers of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman is impervious to all appeals to protect the ratepayers from these inroads, I trust at least the ratepayers of the country themselves will take notice of what the Government are doing in this matter. We find the screw continually put on, although endeavours are made to conceal the actual exercise of that operation in various ways. Nevertheless all these Clauses 10, 11 and 12 do strike blow after blow at the ratepayers of this country. This section is in that respect in accordance with Sections 10 and 11, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us in regard to it.
Mr. WALTER LONG: I want before we part from this section to say a few words without taking any advantage of the

849
ruling you, Sir, gave, for which I respectfully wish to thank you, and which was to the effect that in these Debates we cannot be confined to the very narrowest possible issue. I would remind the Committee that, in regard to the whole question of local taxation, which involves the expenditure of many millions every year, the only opportunity for consideration by this House is in the Debate which ensues upon the Revenue Bill. When the arrangement was made in 1888 which for the first time set apart certain sources of Imperial revenue for local purposes, it was always intended that we should have presented a local taxation Budget similar to the Imperial Budget, and that upon that there should be given an opportunity for the consideration of this question, both with regard to local and national expenditure and the contributions thereto and their increase and decrease, but these opportunities never have been given, and this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the questions raised directly and incidentally by the Amendment of my hon. Friend below the Gangway. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) carried the Debate a little further, and the right hon. Gentleman suggested that he was carrying it further than ought to be allowed on the Amendment. I am not disputing about that question, but this Amendment is undoubtedly a definite way in which we can discuss this question, however briefly, and nobody can complain that the Debate has been unduly prolonged. What does my hon. Friend suggest? He asks that the Government should consider the present burdens of the local authority. This is not a question which divides the House in its ordinary party complexion, nor is it a question which affects landowners and landlords more than other people. In fact, if it was not for the existence of the composite householder, this question would affect the individual in this country far more closely than any other question, and the grievance would be far greater if it were not for the compound householder.
At all events, what is it that my hon. Friend says? He says the cost of collection has not decreased, but, on the contrary, it has increased. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, in 1888, you gave the carriage licences to the local authority, but you did not realise then that carriages would be replaced by motor cars, and since then we have imposed a tax on motor cars, but the right hon. Gentleman loses sight
850
of this point, that when we transferred these revenues in 1888, we not only realised that the cost might increase, but we believed that this revenue would largely grow in value. We believe that with the general increase in prosperity of the country there would be a more general use of carriages of all kinds, and that this revenue would increase. What is it that has prevented this increase? Not the non-increase of vehicles, but the introduction of motor cars. The motor car was liable under an Act of Parliament to special forms of licences covered by regulation for which the Local Government Board is responsible, and subsequently the Government made it a matter for taxation of their own. They transferred a portion of that revenue in order to make up the carriage licence, but they ignored the fact that the whole of the cost of collection is left upon the local authorities, while the revenue is sterilised, and while they are bearing an increased cost of collection, they are not getting the benefit of increase in returns. I regret to have to discuss this point on a Clause which does not directly raise the question, but there is no other way in which we can bring to the attention of the Government and the Committee a question of this kind which goes to the root of the distribution of national and local sources of revenue to the purposes of the State and the localities. I am not going to refer to the inquiry which the Government propose holding, though that is one of the subjects which ought to be very closely inquired into by the Committee, but I hope I may be allowed to say that it came upon me as a revelation that this inquiry was to be conducted by a Departmental Committee. I hope the Government will give us another opportunity of discussing this question, but as far as I am concerned it is a revelation to me that a question of this magnitude, involving such wide issues, should be inquired into in the very limited form suggested.
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to carry out my ruling previously given.
Mr. LONG: I apologise. It is extremely difficult, and I am afraid I was trespassing upon your ruling. I was saying that this is the only opportunity upon which we can raise this question of the charges upon the local authorities and the revenues which they enjoy, and that must be a full justification for the Debate which we have had. I do most earnestly hope that this

851
question of the incidences upon the local authorities of the burden of the collection and the return in revenue which they get as the result will be most carefully thought out by the Government before they make any new proposals, because I do assure the Committee that it does constitute a great injustice of a kind which ought not to be met by the tu quoque argument that we did the same thing in regard to taxation so many years ago. This is an important question, and at the present moment the revenue, having regard to the expenditure, is wholly inadequate.
Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Here is an injustice which is not denied by him, and there is no reason why he should not re-commit the Bill in order to remedy this injustice. Such a course would not destroy the whole financial business of the year, and it seems to me that, having regard to the facts which have been proved that that should be done. The local authorities have not been treated very well. The Land Taxes have been taken from them.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the question before the Committee.
Mr. BUTCHER: I was only asking if the right hon. Gentleman would recommit the Bill in order to give the local authorities this money, which I think they are entitled to, for the cost of collection. I should like an answer to that.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: We cannot possibly recommit the Bill at this stage of the proceedings, and I am only sorry the concession I thought we were making to the local authorities has not been received with a better grace.
Mr. LONG: The right hon. Gentleman will not get his Bill on quicker by throwing charges of that kind about. The discussion has been a very practical one. My hon. Friend has secured, to a very large extent, one of his objects by the discussion we have had, and I recognise that the sub-section is intended to be a concession. It only goes a short way on the road but under the circumstances I will advise my hon. Friend not to put the House to the trouble of a division.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I ask leave to withdraw, as I have the explanation, and I only express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to the figures presented by the County Council
852
Association, showing what the actual cost is in other counties besides Wiltshire.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: I beg to move to omit Sub-section 3 in order to ask for an explanation as to its object.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The intention of this sub-section is to apply so much of the motor car licence as is not wanted for the purposes of the Road Board as a subvention to local authorities.
Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is that an alteration of the Act of 1910? As I understand that Act, the surplus revenue from motor car licences went to road improvements. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me now that the surplus is not going to the Road Improvement Board?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; it only applies the same treatment in the case of the motor car licences as in the case of the motor and spirit duties.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I beg to move in Sub-section (4), after the word "carriages" ["on all business for carriages"] to insert the words, "other than Hackney carriages."
The CHAIRMAN: I am not at all clear in my own mind as to whether this means an increased charge or not.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I think any increase of charge under my Amendment would be highly hypothetical, so much so as not to be worthy of serious consideration.
The CHAIRMAN: A hypothetical or even a possible increase of charge is an increase of charge under our rules.
4.0 P. M.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not think this will involve any increased charge on the Consolidated Fund, because it really refers to a readjustment as between the municipalities of the country and the rural areas. If the Amendment is passed, as I understand the position, the extra charge for the Road Development Board would be met by a similar contribution towards the purposes of the rural authorities. The object of the Amendment is really to prevent these Clauses from neutralising the object which the Bill has in view. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman his object was to remedy a certain injustice in which local authorities would suffer owing to the in-

853
crease in motor vehicles and the decrease in horse vehicles. If the sub-section is left in its present form the Bill will be taking away with one hand what it is giving with the other and neutralising the object it has in view. At the present moment the municipalities of the country are enjoying a growing revenue from the licence duties paid in regard to motor hackney carriages. Those motor hackney carriages were specifically excluded from the Finance Bill of 1909. No increased duty was levied upon them, and it was never contemplated that they should be brought into this particular account. In fact, I might say that this particular Clause, if it is left in its present form, will run contrary to the original intention of the Act of 1909, because in that Act the object was to divide for the purposes of the Local Government Board the new duty, and the only reason the standard year 1908–9 was taken was owing to the mechanical difficulty of separating the new duty from the increment of the old duty. Owing to that mechanical difficulty the munipalities of the country have lost the benefit of the normal increment of the old duty which it was at one time contemplated they should receive. At the time the 1909 Act was passed I understand this question was very carefully considered, and it was decided to leave the duties derived from the hackney carriages to the local authorities. Under the intention of the 1909 Act, as the duties on hackney carriages were not increased, no part of their licence could be devoted to the purposes of the Road Development Board. I hope, as this is merely a drafting Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it. An additional consideration is that we have, so far, received no definite figures with regard to the standard of 1908–9. We are suffering a good deal of inconvenience owing to the inability of the Treasury to state precisely what that standard of 1909 was and to furnish the municipalities of the country with officially ascertained figures on that point.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not know whether the Solicitor-General can assist me on the point of Order, whether this is an increase or not.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): I submit that it must be an increase for this reason. I understand the Noble Lord to be proposing the Amendment with the object of relieving in some degree the local authorities from that
854
which they might have to pay if the Clause remains as it stands. So far that is clear. If he is going to relieve the local authorities from some part of their contribution it will follow that the deficiency has to be made up ultimately out of the Consolidated Fund. It is quite true that in the first instance it goes to the Road Board Fund, but the deficiency has ultimately to be met out of the Consolidated Fund, and I should submit, that being so, that this proposal is in point of fact out of order.
The CHAIRMAN: The question I want to put to the Solicitor-General is this, in order that I may get my mind as clear as possible on this extremely complicated question. The increment now on these hackney carriages goes to the road authorities. How is it a public charge if the Noble Lord's Amendment is made?
Sir JOHN SIMON: I am not quite sure that I follow what is meant by saying the increment of hackney carriages goes to the local authorities. What the Act of Parliament did, and what this Bill does, is to set up a standard by reference to the year 1908–9, and it is the excess over the year 1908–9 which passes to the Exchequer. The question whether or not that excess will be more or less if you substitute the Noble Lord's standard for the standard of the Bill is a question which no one can answer with assurance, more particularly as I understand from the Noble Lord that no one knows exactly how the existing standard works out.
The CHAIRMAN: I think after hearing the Solicitor-General that what the Noble Lord is trying to do is to make an alteration in the Bill in regard to what is a public charge. In that case I must rule the Amendment out of order.
Mr. COURTHOPE: Surely this cannot be a public charge. The duties on motorcars and hackney carriages were excluded from the arrangement made with the Government, which took to itself the increases in the liquor licences. Therefore the local authorities should receive the benefit of any increment of the duties on motor-cars and hackney carriages due to the increase in their number. Under this Clause, as at present worded, there will be a stereotype placed on the proceeds of the Licence Duties from motors and hackney carriages. I think that was not the intention of the Government. I did not understand from the speech of the Solicitor-General that the Amendment which my Noble Friend has moved proposes to

855
stereotype the licences on motors and hackney carriages. I cannot see that any public charge can possibly be imposed.
Mr. BUTCHER: I understand that the object of my Noble Friend's Amendment is to keep things in statu quo. The Bill proposes to divert these proceeds from the local authorities and hand them over to the Exchequer. If that be the true view, it is perfectly in order for my Noble Friend to oppose the Government's proposal.
Sir JOHN SIMON: The matter is necessarily complicated, but it may be brought to a plain point. The local authorities under this Bill are asked to hand over the excess of certain duties as compared with the proceeds of these duties in a previous year. The excess may be so many pounds, and the Noble Lord wishes not to compare the total of the Carriage Duties of the year with that of the standard year, but to compare part of the total duties now with part of the total for the standard year. Whether that will result in more or less money coming to the Treasury is a thing which cannot be determined with certainty until one knows the relation of the parts to the whole. The result may be to bring a less sum to the Treasury. Therefore I say that the Amendment is out of order.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is out of order now that I have considered the point. The matter is very complicated, but according to the Solicitor-General's explanation it appears to be merely a proposal to diminish a contribution from the local authority, and therefore the Committee is dealing with a sum before it comes into the Exchequer. That being the case I cannot rule the Amendment out of order.
Mr. POLLOCK: I support the Amendment, which proposes to retain the status quo. From the lucid explanation given by the Solicitor-General this Clause is hardly so clear as I have no doubt the Government desire it to be. The point raised by the Amendment is that the status quo should be maintained, leaving open the question whether the duties on these carriages are included or not. The Noble Lord's Amendment makes this point simple and clear. I think it is important that these words should be introduced, and therefore I support the Amendment.
Sir JOHN SIMON: On the merits of the proposal I am sorry it does not seem to us possible to accept the suggestion that has
856
been made, and, with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it is not a question whether the Treasury is going to take the excess of a particular kind of licence or not. It is a question of what is the standard sum, the total sum, by reference to which you are to determine what is the contribution that has got to be made. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 the standard taken was duties on motor cars. Suppose that in the year 1908–9, which was the standard year, the duties on motor cars in a certain area had been £10,000, and suppose that in that same area in the next year the duties on motor ears were £12,000, then there would be an excess of £2,000, and that £2,000 would be handed over. That arrangement was perfectly satisfactory in itself, but it was open to this practical objection, that when you come to ask what was the total sum produced by the taxes on motor cars in a given year, 1908–9, it was extremely difficult to find out. And it was difficult to find out, because a motor car is only one variety of carriage for the purposes of Carriage Duty, and though it might fee possible to separate them up, now we are referring, for standard purposes, to a year before the Finance Act of 1909–10 was passed, and it is extremely difficult, as a practical matter, to find out exactly how much was produced by motor cars and how much was produced by other forms of vehicles, all of which were classed as carriages.
That difficulty is very justly illustrated by what the Noble Lord said when he observed upon the great difficulty of finding out the figures for 1908–9. What the Revenue Bill proposes to do is to substitute a standard which at any rate can be applied. Of course we are still going to-compare like with like. Under the Finance Act of 1909–10 we were comparing the produce of motor-car licences then with their produce now. We find that that is impracticable, because we cannot get the figures. Therefore this Bill proposes to substitute the comparison of the produce of carriage licences then with the produce of carriage licences now, which is a perfectly easy thing to ascertain as a figure. This, as has been pointed out, is no disadvantage from the point of view of some counties, which would otherwise lose the whole benefit when a gentleman gives up a carriage and takes a motor car. What the Noble Lord proposes to do is to say, "we will not apply the standard of the total carriage licences then and compare them with the total carriage

857
licences now." He wants to cut a bit out of the total carriage licences. He wants to cut out hackney carriages. This would reproduce the very difficulty, as the hackney carriage may be drawn by a horse or may be a motor. The four-wheel cab and the hansom cab are hackney carriages, and they pay, I think, 15s., the same amount that is paid for a gentleman's dogcart. It may be just as difficult to segregate these figures as it has been found difficult now; therefore, it is necessary that we should adopt a standard—subject to the observation made by the right hon Gentleman opposite that these things would have to be looked into in order that an adjustment of local and Imperial taxes may be made—which can be applied.
Mr. W. R. PEEL: Who gains by the arrangement, then?
Sir JOHN SIMON: The Noble Lord told us that it is a drafting Amendment, and, it that be so, obviously nobody will gain except the lawyers who have to interpret the Act of Parliament. If it is something more than a drafting Amendment, then putting it in its most favourabe aspect, it would mean a gain for some parts of the country as against other parts. With the large number of taxi-cabs employed in London, it would mean that, to some extent, London would gain at the expense of other districts. If you are going to set up a standard it must be one of a practical kind, and I think that if the Noble Lord will look into the matter, he will see that there is a practical difficulty in the way of applying the exception which he proposes, and we cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
Mr. LONG: I confess I am in the position of some other Members in finding it absolutely impossible to know what the process of working of the Government proposal will be, but, if it were further complicated by the Amendment of my Noble Friend, then the difficulty would be increased greatly. When the Noble Lord assures the Committee that it is only a drafting Amendment, while the Solicitor-General shows that London might be benefited to the injury of some other part of the country, the question becomes very difficult, and I am not clear that the Amendment might not make matters worse than they are already.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: One thing seems to emerge from the discussion of this enigmatic Amendment, and that is
858
that London loses considerably. I am informed that the London County Council estimated it at about £3,000 per year. I only want to note that this is another point in favour of London, and against the financial arrangement proposed by the Government from the London point of view. I do not know whether that is going to be remedied by the Committee. In London, where the horse carriages are diminishing and the taxi-cabs are increasing we are likely to suffer a serious loss of revenue owing to the course the Government now propose to take.
Mr. BUTCHER: Of course, we are anxious to vote right on this Amendment, and to enable us to do so can the right hon. Gentleman tell us is the taxation from the motor and other hackney carriages increasing or not, or, in other words, are the proceeds from that source larger to-day than they were, let us say, two years ago?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot inform the hon. and learned Gentleman for the reason that the county councils do not make returns to the Local Government Board until some time after they themselves receive the benefit of those licences. Until we get those returns we cannot say what the exact amount is. As the learned Solicitor-General has pointed out they do not distinguish hackney carriages from private carriages.
Mr. BUTCHER: I quite know that, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman seek the great difficulty to Members in having financial proposals on which we are asked to vote while we cannot get any information as to how they are going to work out.
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that question arises on the Amendment before the Committee. This is a definite proposal to amend and the hon. and learned Member should speak to it.
Mr. BUTCHER: I will not pursue it further. I am asking merely for information. If the taxation from these hackney vehicles is necessary then the effect of the proposal of the Government would be to benefit the Exchequer at the expense of the local authorities, and if, on the other hand, the amount from that source is a diminishing quantity the effect of the proposal of the Government is to benefit the local authorities. I think it is common knowledge, although the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us the information that motor, hackney vehicles, are increasing ail over the country, and therefore it must be

859
certain that the proceeds of the taxation on those vehicles is increasing. If that be so, the effect of the Government proposal is to take something away from the local authorities and give it to the Exchequer. Feeling that is the effect of the Government proposal, I shall certainly vote for my Noble Friend's Amendment unless it is proved to me I am wrong in my supposition, because there is no reason shown why the local authorities should be deprived of a benefit they already have. I shall certainly vote for the maintenance of the status quo.
Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: I do not want the House to be under the impression that I want to benefit the Exchequer of the London County Council at the expense of the cathedral cities. If the Amendment is carried a certain amount of money will go into the exchequer of the London County Council which under ordinary circumstances by this proposal would
go to the Road Development Board, but the losers, if it is carried, are not the municipalities and other parts of England, but the Road Development Fund. The people who benefit are not merely those in London, but all the great municipalities which are interested in the licensing of hackney vehicles. There is no mechanical or administrative difficulty involved. I propose to differentiate not between hansom cabs and taxi-cabs, but simply between hackney vehicles, whether horse or motor, and ordinary private vehicles. The Solicitor-General has made a very valuable admission in stating that he cannot furnish any ascertained figures as to the standard year. An easy way of getting over that difficulty would be to substitute for the year 1909–10 the year 1908–9.
Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 213.

Division No. 80.]

AYES.

[4.26 p.m.

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

Forster, Henry William

Perkins, Walter Frank

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Gardner, Ernest

Peto, Basil Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Goldsmith, Frank

Pretyman, Ernest George

Astor, Waldorf

Gretton, John

Quilter, William Eley C.

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

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

Harris, Henry Percy

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Balcarres, Lord

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Baldwin, Stanley

Helmsley, Viscount

Rolleston, Sir John

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

Henderson, Major H. (Berks., Abingdon)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Baring, Capt. Hon. Guy Victor

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Barnston, H.

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hills, John Waller

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bonn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Boyten, James

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Spear, John Ward

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanier, Beville

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Butcher, John George

Kerry, Earl of

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Cassel, Felix

Kimber, Sir Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Cautley, Henry Strother

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cave, George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

Weigall, Capt. A. G.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

MacCaw, W. J. M.

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

Clive, Percy Archer

Malcolm, Ian

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Courthope, George Loyd

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

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Mount, William Arthur

Wolmer, Viscount

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Newman, John R. P.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Craik, Sir Henry

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Worthington-Evans, L.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Nield, Herbert

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Croft, Henry Page

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

Yate, Colonel C. E.

Doughty, Sir George

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Younger, George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Paget, Aimeric Hugh

Fisher, William Hayes

Peel, Capt R. F. (Woodbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Lord A. Thynne and Mr. H. Lawsen.

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

Acland, Francis Dyke

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Bentham, G. J

Alden, Percy

Barnes, George N.

Boland, John Plus

Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

Barran, Sir John N, (Hawick)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Alien, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Brace, William

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Beale, W. P.

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Beauchamp, Edward

Brunner, John F. L.

Bryce, John Annan

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

Pringle, William M. R.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Radford, George Heynes

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

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Raffan, Peter wilson

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, W.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Carr-Gomm, H W.

Jowett, Frederick William

Reddy, Michael

Chancellor, Henry George

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Keating, Matthew

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Kellaway, Frederick George

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lambert, George (S. Moulton)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Roberts, Sir J H. (Denbighs.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Lansbury, George

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robinson, Sidney

Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Crooks, William

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Lundon, Thomas

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rowlands, James

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Scanlan, Thomas

Dawes, J. A.

MacGhee, Richard

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Maclean, Donald

Sheehy, David

Dickinson, W H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shortt, Edward

Dillon, John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Callum, John M.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Doris, William

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Sutherland, John E.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Marks, George Croydon

Sutton, John E.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Meagher, Michael

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Elverston, Harold

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Tennant, Harold John

Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

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

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Esslemont, George Birnie

Money, L. G Chiozza

Verney, Sir Harry

Farrell, James Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Wadsworth, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Morgan, George Hay

Walters, John Tudor

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Morrell, Philip

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Ffrcnch, Peter

Muldoon, John

Wardle, G. J.

Field, William

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

Waring, Waiter

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Neilson, Francis

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Gill, A. H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Glanville, Harold James

Nolan, Joseph

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Goldstone, Frank

Norman, Sir Henry

Watt, Henry A.

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Webb, H.

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

O'Dowd, John

Whitehouse, John Howard

Hancock, John George

Ogden, Fred

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Grady, James

Whyte, A. F

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Malley, William

Wilkie, Alexander

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

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

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Shee, James John

Williamson, Sir A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

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

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Hayden, John Patrick

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Henry, Sir Charles S.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Young, William (Perth, E).

Higham, John Sharp

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pointer, Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Hudson, Walter

Price, Sir Robert J.

Question put, and agreed to.

PART VI.
  NATIONAL DEBT.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Provision as to Old Sinking Fund for Current Financial Year, 38 and 39 Vict. c. 45.)
    For the purpose of calculating the old sinking fund for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, Sections four and five of
    862
    the Sinking Fund Act, 1875, shall have effect as if the income and expenditure therein referred to were the aggregate income and aggregate expenditure respectively for the two financial years ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, and the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and eleven.
    Mr. COURTHOPE: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    In doing so I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not suspect me in anyway of trying to prevent this surplus to the

    863
    end of the financial year going to the object for which it was intended. I have no such intention, but I think the pooling of two financial years, as proposed under this Clause 13, is a very dangerous precedent for the Committee to set up. Let me point out what it might lead to. It is not beyond the ingenuity of the Government—I do not say this Government, but any Government—to arrange two probable surpluses for one year. It would enable any future Government deliberately to arrange for a large surplus in a year which they anticipated would be the last before a General Election, and to propose a pooling arrangement so as to be able to start that last year with £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 in hand to enable them to remit a great deal of unpopular taxation for election purposes. It is absolutely un-sound from a national point of view, especially when either that Government or their opponents, whichever succeeded in getting back to power, would have to replace the unpopular taxation just remitted. That would be placing in the hands of Government a great power which they might use for election purposes and election purposes only. If a difficulty has arisen in carrying out the usual statutory sinking funds arrangements with regard to the services of the year that came to an end in April last, two separate Clauses should have been put in, and the two years should not be grouped together. It is not that I object to the money going to the Sinking Fund, but I object to the pooling arrangement by which the sums for the two years are put together.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The reason why this Clause is necessary is because circumstances necessitate some recurrence to the events of last year. Owing to the fact that there was no regular Budget for 1910–11 there was a certain amount of expenditure incurred, amounting, I think, to something like £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. There was a corresponding want of revenue to meet that expenditure, and the result, briefly, was this, that at the end of the year 1910–11 there was a deficit of something like £26,000,000. At the end of the year 1911–12, there will be a very large surplus. In order to meet the deficit of £26,000,000 the Treasury brought in a measure called the Temporary Borrowing Powers Bill which authorised borrowing up to the extent of the deficit as covered by the Appropriation Act of that year. We raised the £21,000,000, and £17,000,000 of that was raised by Treasury Bills, and the other by
    864
    deficiency advances. The whole of that money has been repaid, and the result is that there is a very large surplus in the second of the two years mentioned here. It is quite clear that the repayment of the Treasury Bills and the deficiency advances have to be met this year, but unless we pass this Bill you will have to go through the whole process of raising the money again. That would be going through a very useless and needless form of raising money and cancelling your borrowings at a time when you have a large surplus which you are paying over to the old Sinking Fund. I am sure that is a proceeding which will not commend itself to any man of common sense on either side of the House. When the hon. Member opposite looks at it from that point of view I think he will agree that it is necessary to put the whole of these Budgets together and get the power which the Government seek to obtain in order to divert the money which would otherwise go to the repayment of debt and cancellation of bonds.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think my hon. Friend's objection was that he thought it was a precedent, and the first step in establishing the general system by which the two years might be pooled together, no doubt with confusing and possibly dangerous results to the finances of the country. I understand the explanation is that this is purely an ad hoc arrangement made because the Budget of 1909–10 was not passed until 1910–11. This is one of the singular results of that very singular operation. It is singular because it was perfectly unneccessary. The Government in power at the early part of last year, as they themselves frankly admit, would not have had the slightest difficulty in passing the Budget in the year to which it belonged. This is the policy which is getting us into all the trouble of next week. One of the results has been an extraordinary confusion in regard to the old Sinking Fund due to the fact that there was an unreal deficit in one year and an unreal surplus the next. No doubt that is a very unfortunate state of things, and this may be the best way of getting out of the difficulty. Now that my hon. Friend understands that this is a temporary ad hoc arrangement to meet a temporary crisis, perhaps he will not think it necessary to follow up his speech by asking the Committee to divide.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

PART VII.
  MISCELLANEOUS.

    CLAUSE 14.—Repeal, construction, and short title,
    (1) The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
    (2) Part I. of this Act shall be construed together with Part I. of the principal Act.
    Part II. of this Act shall be construed together wth the Acts which relate to duties of Excise and the management of those duties.
    Part III. of this Act shall be construed together with the Income Tax Acts, 1842 and 1853, and any other enactments relating to Income Tax.
    Part IV. of this Act shall be construed together with the Stamp Act, 1891.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Re-venue Act, 1911.
    Clause agreed to.
    Committee report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
    ADJOURNMENT.—Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes before Five p.m. until Monday next, 27th March.