HC Deb 24 March 1911 vol 23 cc793-841

(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."


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 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 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.


Does the hon. and learned Gentleman desire to move only "and every subsequent"?


That will be sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


moved, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words "and every subsequent" ["in the current and every subsequent financial year."]


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 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 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.


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 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 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.


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, 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——


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.


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. 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 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 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.


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 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 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.


I would like to know whether this Clause will affect the contribution to public elementary education?


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.


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.


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.


I think that is a little unfair.


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.


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.


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 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.


You will announce that on Monday?


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 rose to continue the Debate.


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.


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, 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 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.


Who originally made those grants?


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 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——


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.


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 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——


This is not the occasion upon which to raise that point.


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.


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 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.


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 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 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.


Do I understand that this 4s. a week per inmate is paid out of the fund which this Clause deals with?




It is not paid under this, it is not the whisky money.


Yes, it is paid out of the licences and other Excise payments.


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.


If it is not paid out of the Irish proceeds of the whisky money this question does not arise.


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.


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.


Then the hon. Member will not be in order in dealing with it.


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.


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 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.


I said it?

2.0 P.M.


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, 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.


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 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——


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 House, and I venture to say he will receive the thanks of the local authorities in this matter.


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.

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 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 hon. Member is dealing with the way in which the money is spent. He cannot be allowed to deal with those questions.


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.


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 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.


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 (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 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 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.


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.


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 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 to the development of secondary education by accepting the Amendment.


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 action of the House as to the Closure is not to be criticised.


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. 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 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.


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 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.
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)
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
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

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."


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.


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.


I accept the Amendment.


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
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
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)