Commons Sitting of 30 March 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bicester Urban District Gas Bill,
Furness Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Bristol Tramways Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Municipal Elections Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C. Report to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.
Local Authorities (Ireland) (Qualification of Women) Bill.
Second Reading deferred from Monday next till Friday, 21st April.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Ipswich Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table.

CANADA (IMPORTS).
Return ordered, "showing the imports into Canada from the United Kingdom for the years 1894–5, 1899–1900, 1904–5, 1908–9, and 1909–10, of the articles included in the proposed reciprocity agreement between Canada and the United States, and the general and preferential rates of duty, if any, in each year, and the rates contained in the aforesaid agreement."—[Mr. SteelMaitland.]
NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Ordered, "Copy of Account of Receipts and Expenditure, with Balance Sheet, for the year 1910."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Foreign Office (French Language).
  Earl WINTERTONasked whether a complete knowledge of French was required of candidates for admission into the Foreign Office; and if any examination was undergone by them?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): A thorough knowledge of French is required of candidates for the Foreign Office. Their examination is conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners.
  Earl WINTERTONasked how many English-French interpreters were employed at the Foreign Office?
  Sir E. GREY: English-French translations are dealt with by members of the ordinary staff of the Foreign Office, and no special interpreters are employed.
  Mr. REMNANT: In the event of the Parliamentary representatives of the Foreign Office being unable to speak French or any other foreign language, are special interpreters attached to them?
  Sir E. GREY: No, they use the ordinary channels.

  Hague Conventions, 1907.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked what legislation would be necessary as a preliminary to the ratification by His Majesty's Government of the Conventions signed at the Hague in 1907 for regulating the duty of neutrals in time of maritime war?
  Sir E. GREY: A Bill shall shortly be introduced, the provisions of which will answer the question of the hon. Member.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked whether His Majesty's Government had ratified any and, if so, which of the thirteen Conventions drawn up at the second Peace Conference, held at the Hague in 1907; and whether legislation would be required as a preliminary to the ratification of Conventions numbered 1 to 11, or any, and which of them, by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir E. GREY: Numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 of the Conventions etc., which resulted from the second Peace Conference at the Hague, have been ratified by the King, as will be seen from the Treaty Series which have been laid before Parliament. The remainder, as was stated in answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth last Monday, require legislation to give effect to them.
  Mr. POLLOCKasked whether such legislation as might be neecssary as a preliminary to the ratification by His Majesty's Government of the Conventions signed at the Hague in 1907, or any of them, would be submitted to this House in sufficient time for it to be laid also before the Colonial Conference?
  Sir E. GREY: A Bill to provide the necessary legislation to give effect to the Conventions signed at the Hague, which have not yet been ratified, with the exception of that which relates to the establishment of an International Prize Court, will be introduced very shortly. I cannot at present, say when it will be possible to introduce the Naval Prize Bill. In any case the legislation is all of a technical character, dealing with machinery, and I do not suppose it will be discussed at the Imperial Conference.

  Egypt (Consul-General's Report).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had yet received the Report of His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General in Egypt, and when that Report was likely to be published?
  Sir E. GREY: I hope to receive the whole Report about the beginning of May, and it will be laid as usual as soon as possible after it is received.

  Southern Italy (Medical Treatment of Foreigners).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the case of a young American lady who, whilst on a visit to Naples a few days since, met with an accident, and was taken to the hospital, where the doctor in charge refused to attend the case on the ground that the patient was a foreigner; whether he was aware that the lady was then conveyed on a stretcher to the international hospital, but was refused admission, with the result that she received no medical atten-
  1490
  tion until an hour and a half after the accident, and subsequently died; and would he make inquiry with a view to prevent British subjects from being exposed to similar treatment when travelling in Southern Italy?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I have not received any information with regard to this case, but will make inquiries.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the British Foreign Office any jurisdiction in regard to an American subject?
  Sir E. GREY: I understand the point in the question to be whether I would make inquiries as to what happened, with a view to preventing British subjects being exposed to undue risks. That is the reason for my reply.

  Great Britain and France (Military Obligations).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if, when he came into office, there was in existence any understanding or undertaking, expressed or implied, in virtue of which Great Britain would be under obligations to France to send troops, in certain eventualities, to assist the operations of the French Army?
  Sir E. GREY: The extent of the obligation to which Great Britain was committed was that expressed or implied in the Anglo-French Convention laid before Parliament. There was no other engagement bearing on the subject.

  United States and Canada (Tariff Arrangement).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the nature of the general reciprocity scheme referred to in Mr. Bryce's despatch of 10th January, 1911 [Cd. 5523, No. 5]; does No. 5 represent the whole despatch from Mr. Bryce on 10th March, 1911; do the words general reciprocity scheme refer to the proposal for Free Trade in everything which President Taft stated at Atalanta on 10th March he had instructed his representatives to offer to the Canadian Government; at what date did Mr. Bryce communicate this proposal to His Majesty's Government and seek their instructions as to the line of action he was to take in regard to it; what was the nature of the

  1491
  communication Mr. Bryce had from Canadian Ministers; and what were the difficulties incident to the adoption of this general reciprocity scheme which still appeared serious at the date of Mr. Bryce's despatch?
  Sir E. GREY: No. 5 is not the whole despatch from Mr. Bryce, but the part omitted referred to a different matter. The nature of the general reciprocity referred to is presumably reciprocity in manufactured goods, as well as in natural products; but I may add that, as has been stated by the Canadian Minister of Finance, the Canadian Government were not prepared to undertake to have Free Trade in manufactures generally. With regard to President Taft's speech at Atalanta, I would refer to my reply to the hon. Member of the 23rd instant. Generally speaking, I should like to say that I cannot make statements about difficulties affecting Canadian interests which Canadian Ministers may have anticipated in the course of the negotiations, and expressed to Mr. Bryce. To do so would obviously destroy the confidence which exists between Canadian Ministers and His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. REMNANT: In the negotiations between Canadian and United States Ministers was a request made that British imports into the United States should be treated on the same terms as Canadian?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Panama Canal (Fortification).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the fortification of the Panama Canal; whether any representations on this subject had been made to the Government of the United States; and, if so, would he lay any correspondence upon the Table?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to all three questions is in the negative.

  Most-Favoured-Nation Treaties (Arbitration).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that for more than forty years His Majesty's Government had made repeated representations to the Government of the
  1492
  United States respecting the conditional interpretation of most-favoured-nation treatment in the treaty of 1815; that in 1829 the United States Government informed the Government of France that the interpretation of most-favoured-nation treatment could never be put into the power of any third party for settlement; whether His Majesty's Government had any reason for believing that the United States Government had abandoned this attitude and would now be prepared to submit the long-standing differences about most-favoured-nation treaties to arbitration; and whether they would make such representations in particular in connection with the discrimination against British goods in the United States markets contemplated by the proposed reciprocity agreement with Canada?
  Sir E. GREY: The answers to the first two parts of the question are in the affirmative. I do not propose to make any statement in regard to the rest of the question at present.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: In the event of any agreement being arrived at between the United States and this country, will the question of most-favoured-nation treatment be excluded or otherwise?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask the hon. Member to accept my answer. I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

  Irish Fishing Industry (Illegal Trawling).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state the result of his communications with the Admiralty on the subject of providing additional protection for the Irish fishing industry against the illegal operations of steam trawlers during the coming fishing season; had the Admiralty an option on a number of large steam trawlers for the North Sea in the event of an outbreak of war; and, if so, whether, in the event of the Admiralty not agreeing to detach special cruisers for the protection of the Irish fishing interests, he would represent to the proper authorities the advisability of chartering one or more of these trawlers for the protection of the fishing industry in peace time?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): It is not the duty of the Admiralty to enforce the provisions of fishery by-laws which restrict or prohibit

  1493
  steam trawling. The Admiralty protect territorial waters from encroachment by foreigners, and for this and other purposes the Rear-Admiral Commanding in Ireland has vessels under his command and has always given prompt response to requests made by the Department in connection with fishery matters. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been the result of the communications to the Admiralty to which he referred in his answer last week?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. I advised the Admiralty rather for the purpose of giving them information.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that recently a shot was fired near the house of Captain Maxwell, at the Bridge, Croom; whether any damage was done; whether any arrests were made; and what precautions the police were taking to prevent such incidents in the future.
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the 20th January last a shot was fired near the house of Captain Maxwell. Some pellets of small shot lodged in the hall door and door jamb, but no other damage was done. No arrests have been made. The police are paying all necessary attention to the matter.
  Captain CRAIG: Have any arrests been made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No.
  Mr. LUNDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police are endeavouring to ascertain in order to make arrests if possible.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he was aware that recently the residence of Lieutenant D. A. R. Kirwan, R.N., Bawnmore, Galway, was fired into; how many shots were fired; what reason was assigned for the incident; what arrests were made; and what precautions the police were taking to prevent such incidents in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On the 12th February a number of shots, probably seven or
  1494
  eight, were fired into the residence of Lieutenant Kirwan. No reason can be assigned, as Lieutenant Kirwan is very popular. No arrests have been made. The police are taking all necessary precautions in the matter.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Have the police given any reason for the apparent difficulty in tracing the perpetrators of this crime?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; they have given me no information on that point.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been informed that it is the terrorism that exists in this neighbourhood which prevents people from giving evidence?
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, early in the morning of the 18th October, 1910, the house of three old ladies named Curley, who live near Trim, county Meath, and twenty-seven tons of hay, seven tons of straw, and thirty barrels of oats were maliciously burned, the lives of the ladies being endangered; and that on their return home, on the night previous to county court Judge Curran awarding them £128 compensation, a further ten tons of hay were maliciously burned; whether any reason can be assigned for these occurrences; whether any arrests have been made; and what precautions the police have taken to prevent them in future and to protect these ladies' lives?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the county court judge awarded £128 compensation for the malicious burning of hay, straw, and oats belonging to these ladies, and that a second burning took place on the night following the day on which compensation was granted, and not on the night previous. The motive is a matter of opinion. No arrests have been made. The police will pay all necessary attention to the matter.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that recently eleven shots were fired into the house of a farmer named Collins, residing at Lisheenaralla, about two miles from Oranmore and seven from Galway, the windows of the house being smashed and some of the splinters striking a little girl standing in the kitchen, cutting her about the face; whether this farmer was fired at a few months ago, and on a former occasion his horse was shot dead in the cart in

  1495
  which he was driving while on his way home; whether any reason can be assigned for this series of outrages; whether any arrests have been made; and what precautions the police are taking to prevent them in future and to protect the man's life?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On 18th January last a number of shots, presumably about eight, were fired at the house of John Collins. Twenty-eight grains of shot entered the window of the kitchen, and some of the splintered glass lodged in the hair of Mrs. Collins, her son, and a girl who were sitting at the fire. No one was injured A son of John Collins was fired at on 30th September last, and on 10th June last, while he was driving home with a horse and cart. The horse was shot in the head, and died soon afterwards. No arrests have been made. It is not usual in such cases to assign reasons which can only be a matter of conjecture. All necessary steps have been taken for the protection of the Collins' family.
  Captain CRAIG: Has any arrest been made in connection with the shooting of the man who was driving home in his horse and trap?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, sir.
  Mr. JOHN WALSHasked whether, on the 29th of January last, a shot was fired at a train in which the Members of Parliament for South, South-East, and West Cork, who were returning from a monster meeting held at Skibbereen, under the auspices of the All-for-Ireland League, were travelling; that the shot smashed the glass in the window of a first-class carriage in which a reporter of the "Cork Examiner" and a reporter of the "Cork Free Press" were seated; and that the panels and photographic views in the carriage were riddled with shot; and whether, seeing that it was stated publicly in the Skibbereen court-house that the miscreant who fired the shot was well known to the police, he will state what steps, if any, have been taken to bring him to justice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that a shot was fired at the train as stated in the question. The police immediately investigated the matter, but have obtained no evidence to justify a prosecution. A solicitor, defending a prisoner in another case, stated publicly in Skibbereen Courthouse that the person who fired the shot
  1496
  at the train was well known to the police, but the District Inspector informs me that there was no foundation for this assertion.

  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 13th January last twenty-five head of cattle and seventy-seven head of sheep were maliciously driven off the farm of Mr. John L. Cotton, at Ballinakill, county division of Ballymoe; whether any injury was caused by the drive; whether any arrests were made; and what precautions the police are taking to prevent such incidents in the future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that Mr. Cotton has lodged a claim for £50 compensation for the driving of his cattle as mentioned in the question. No arrests have been made. The police will endeavour to prevent a repetition of the offence.

  Threatening Notices (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that recently two cases of threatening notices or letters were reported to the police in Galway, Mrs. Ryan, of Mace, whose house was fired into several times on last New Year's night, receiving a letter ordering her to give up the farm of land which is her principal means of support; whether letters were also received by each of her workmen cautioning them against working for her; whether during the last three years Mrs. Ryan has been rigorously boycotted and is under police protection; whether the envelopes of the threatening letters, which were delivered by mistake to another Mrs. Ryan, of Craughwell, bore the Craughwell post-mark and the letters were signed Craughwell Camp; whether any arrests were made; and what steps the police have taken to trace the writers of the intimidating notices?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The attention of the police has been called to these cases. The threatening letters to Mrs. Ryan's workmen were not delivered to them. They were delivered at Mace in Mrs. Ryan's postbag, and when she saw that they were posted in Craughwell she handed them over to the police. Mrs. Ryan has been partially boycotted during the last three years. No arrests have been made. The police have used every effort to trace the writers of the letters, but so far without success. A protection post has recently been formed at Mace.

  Caherconlish School (County Limerick).
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to applications made on several occasions during the past eight years by the manager of the national schools in the parish of Caherconlish, county Limerick, for a grant towards the building of a school in the village of Caherconlish which would be central for the children of the whole parish; whether he is aware that the Kilmurry school, which is within the parish, was closed three years ago and the annual grant withdrawn on account of its dilapidated state; that the two small schools now in the district, viz., Caherconlish and Inch St. Laurence, are in a very bad state of repair and without proper accommodation for children; and whether senior and district inspectors have time after time reported the urgent necessity that exists for a new school in Caherconlish; and if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, steps will be taken to have the grant sought for given, and thus provide the necessary accommodation for the well-being of the children of these districts?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Proposals for the erection of a new schoolhouse to replace those at Caherconlish, Inch St. Laurence, and Kilmurry, have been before the Commissioners of National Education for some years. It was not, however, until May, 1910, that the solicitor to the Commissioners was in a position to report that the title to the site might be accepted. The case is included in the list of applications requiring immediate attention, which was submitted to the Treasury in December last, but the Commissioners have not indicated that the case is more urgent than many others, and I cannot therefore take any special steps with regard to it.

  Cork Assizes (Bantry Riot).
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENhad the following question on the Paper: To ask the Chief Secretary whether the seventeen men prosecuted at the Cork assizes for a political riot at Bantry, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, were all members of the All-for-Ireland League, while no prosecutions were instituted against any member of the opposing crowd connected with the United Irish League; was it proved by the police witnesses for the Crown that the meeting held by the latter body at Bantry was mainly composed of strangers who arrived by special trains from Cork city and elsewhere, and that a number of those
  1498
  strangers, known to the police, were seen by the police to assault with stones and batons the inhabitants of the town and to break the windows in the houses of the policemen as well as of the townspeople; is he aware that at the inquiry in the police court it was sworn by one of the officers in charge of the police, District-Inspector M'Mahon, that the United Irish Leaguers guilty of these offences were as typical a set of rowdies of the corner-boy class as he had ever knocked up against; will he say why District-Inspector M'Mahon's evidence was withheld by the Crown from the jury at the assizes; why were no proceedings taken against any member of the United Irish League mob; were the counsel engaged for the prosecution by the Crown the same counsel habitually engaged by the United Irish League and the Irish Parliamentary party in their legal business, and, in a case involving so much strong political feeling, why was not some nonpartisan counsel, such as the Solicitor-General for Ireland, commissioned to represent the Crown; is he aware that at a meeting held a week or two afterwards at Crossmolina, county Mayo, where two Members of Parliament were waylaid with stones, batons, bottles, and revolvers by an organised crowd in the interest of the United Irish League, a man named Moclair, a pensions officer in the pay of the Government, admitted that he discharged his revolver five times in the street and broke a pane of plateglass in a shop window with a stone; that no proceedings for conspiracy or riot, such as were taken against the Bantry traversers, were instituted against Moclair or against any other member of his mob; that he did not think it necessary to make a personal appearance to the ordinary police summons served upon him, and was nevertheless let off with a fine of 10s., and is still retained in the Government service; and what is the explanation of the different treatment extended by the Crown to members of the All-for-Ireland League and of the United Irish League on such occasions?
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question——
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I have not asked it yet.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I ask whether there is any rule or regulation of the House governing the length of questions by hon. Members?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No; there is no rule about the matter.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: It is the only chance that we have.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am informed the men prosecuted and convicted at Cork were members of the All-for-Ireland League, and it is true that no other prosecution was instituted with reference to the riot at Bantry. The meeting, I believe, was largely composed of persons who had come from Cork City and elsewhere, but there is no police evidence, so far as I can trace the matter, identifying any of those persons in connection with the breaking of windows, either in the houses of policemen or of the townspeople. Some of these persons, not, as I think, many, were seen throwing stones during the progress of the riot, but the police reports show that they threw the stones in retaliation for and in defence against the unprovoked and violent attack made upon them, both with stones and sticks, by the crowd of which the persons convicted at Cork formed part. It will be found on an examination of the depositions that the police evidence was substantially to the same effect. District-Inspector McMahon, in describing one section of the people who came from Cork, did refer to them in the terms indicated in the question, but the district inspector in no way conveyed that the persons he was speaking of were guilty parties on the occasion. The district inspector's evidence was altogether of a general character. He did not profess to identify anybody, and I am informed that he was not called as a witness for the prosecution because there was an abundance of merely descriptive evidence of the riot given by other witnesses. He was, however, in court, and was available for examination by the counsel for the accused, had they considered his evidence in respect of service to them. The prosecutions were confined to the persons charged, because on the police reports they and those acting with them were the aggressors in and authors of a wholly unprovoked and a preconcerted riot prolonged for several hours, in the course of which many persons, including several policemen and their officer were severely injured by the deliberate and persistent attacks upon them by the All-for-Ireland League party, some of the police being struck with stones and seriously wounded on their heads and faces. The acts of their opponents were, on the contrary, considered by the police mainly as a defence against the organised
  1500
  attacks made on them, and on no occasion did they attack the police. It is an unfounded idea that the two eminent counsel who conducted the prosecution are in any sense partisans. They are, and have been for many years, as is well known in Ireland, the permanent Crown prosecutors for the county of Cork, where the offence was committed and the trial was held.
  Regarding the Crossmolina meeting, judging from the accounts given by the police, the hon. Member takes a highly-exaggerated view of what occurred. I am glad to say no one, so far as I know, was injured on the occasion. The man Moclair did, I am informed, fire some shots from a revolver, but this was not done at or during the meeting, nor till long afterwards. The shots were fired as Moclair was driving away from Crossmolina at about a quarter to eight o'clock in the evening. It was never suggested the shots were fired at anybody, and for the offence of firing in the street Moclair was prosecuted, and was fined in the maximum penalty, with costs. For the breaking of the window, an incident which took place also long after the meeting, Moclair paid £2 by way of compensation. There is no foundation whatever for the imputation made in the concluding part of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: In reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask: Is it not the fact that those men were acquitted of the charges of conspiracy and of assault; further, is it not the fact that this row at Bantry was the only occasion on which any crowd of All-for-Irelanders came into collision with the police, while there were many occasions on which the opposing crowd have come into collision with the police without any prosecutions having been instituted against them either for conspiracy or for assault?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: All I can say in reply to that is that the hon. Gentleman is right in stating that charges of assault were not found against them, but that a charge of very gross riot was. For that alone they were sentenced to six months hard labour. As to what are the relations between this party and the police I am not in a position to make an answer.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I would like to ask the Chief Secretary, as the responsible Minister, whether he will grant us a public inquiry that will discover what is true as between the allegations in this question,

  1501
  and the answers that have been supplied to the Attorney-General for Ireland, seeing that any possibility of debate upon the subject has for the moment been rendered impossible in this House?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I cannot say that I see any ground whatever for a public inquiry.
  Mr. GILHOOLY: Was there not conclusive evidence given in the Bantry cases that this mob came down from Cork, and, without anyone molesting or interfering with them, smashed several windows of the houses of the members of the All-for-Ireland League, and also the windows of other houses; is he also aware that one of the policemen saw one of these men striking another with a baton, and that, though the policeman knew the man, he did not prosecute him; and how can he account for the one-sided action——
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking too many questions.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman make himself responsible for the statement that no revolver shots were fired during the progress of the meetings in Crosmolina? Is he aware that one man in the same carriage with two Members of Parliament had his skull split open with a stone during that night?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I never heard such a thing suggested before. The police reports that have come to me are to the effect that one man alone fired a revolver shot, as I have described.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman——

  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Sligo Memorials).
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board have received memorials from the tenants on the estates of Mrs. Perry, Mrs. Sanders Knox-Gore, Lord Harlech, Mr. Wade Thomson, Mr. George O'Malley Ormsby, Mr. Charles Boyd, senior, and Rev. J. Nicholson, all situated in the parish of Castleconnor, county Sligo; and if he will state what steps the Board have taken to acquire those estates, and when the lands will be available for the settlement of congestion in this district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received memorials from the tenants on the estates referred to, and communicated with the owners with a
  1502
  view to opening negotiations for sale through the Board. The estates of Charles Boyd, Lord Harlech, and Mrs. Sanders Knox-Gore have been offered to the Board, and will be inspected as soon as practicable. It is understood that the maps and other documents necessary to enable an inspection to be made are being prepared in the case of Mrs. Perry Knox-Gore. The remaining three estates referred to have not yet been offered to the Board.
  Mr. FLAVINasked if the Congested Districts Board have arranged any scheme other than the parish committees by which small farmers, whose valuation is over £7, can either get a free grant or a loan at a low rate of interest to enable tenants to improve and enlarge their dwelling-houses and out-offices; and, if so, whether he can state on what terms the loan or free grants can be made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have approved of a scheme, outside of the parish committee scheme, under which tenants on estates purchased by the Board can get free grants and loans in connection with the improvement and enlargement of their dwelling-houses and out-offices. The terms and conditions on which such assistance is given are set out in a poster, a copy of which I will forward to the hon. Member.
  Mr. FLAVINasked if the Congested Districts Board have universal compulsory power, under the Land Purchase Act of 1909, in the congested counties, to acquire any estate for the purpose of resale to the tenants where the landlord or his representative has refused to sell the estate voluntarily, either to the tenants direct or to the Congested Districts Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member will refer to Section 60 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, he will, I think, agree that the Congested Districts Board have power, if they think fit, to take steps for compulsory purchase in the cases referred to in the question.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I take it the Congested Districts Board can exercise compulsory powers on any estate no matter what size.

  Verschoyle Estate Tenants, Ballina.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the request of the tenants on the Verschoyle Estate, near Ballina, that the estate should be purchased by the

  1503
  Congested Districts Board; whether he can state if the landlord has given on lease or otherwise to his bailiff, who has already a large holding of land, a considerable area of bog land which tenants of small, congested, and uneconomic farms desired to have divided amongst them; and whether, in the circumstances, the Congested Districts Board will take immediate steps to acquire this estate compulsorily?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Communications have been received by the Congested Districts Board from the tenants asking them to purchase this estate. The Board wrote to the agent with a view to negotiating for the sale of the estate through them, but so far the estate has not been offered to the Board. The Board have no information as to the alleged disposal of the bog land by the owner. They have not considered the question of acquiring the estate compulsorily.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked why Lucy Smith, of Drumshinny, Arva, county Cavan, has been refused a pension; is he aware that her husband, who is her junior, is drawing a pension; and will he have the reason for disallowing pensions clearly stated on the form notifying the same in each case.
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board upheld the pension officer's appeal on the ground that Lucy Smith had not reached the statutory age. The Board have no information regarding her husband. The Board's decision is notified on a form prescribed by the regulations which they have no authority to alter, but a claimant or pensioner in whose case an appeal is lodged is always made aware of the ground of appeal.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if he is now able to promise to introduce legislation this Session to remove the disqualification for an old age pension imposed on British-born women who are the widows of unnaturalised foreigners?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I regret that it is not possible as yet to make any definite statement on this matter.

  Cavan County Council (Cootehill, Bridewell).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked at whose request, and by whose authority,
  1504
  an engineer to the Board of Works, Ireland, visited Cootehill to make a map of, and report on, the Bridewell in that town in 1910; to whom, in the first instance, were the map and report submitted; and by whose directions he attended the court to give expert evidence in the civil action brought by the Cavan County Council against the Hon. H. E. Maxwell, high sheriff, and John Mills, court-keeer.
  Mr. BIRRELL: One of the assistant surveyors of the Board of Works examined the premises at Cootehill and made a plan and report at the request of the solicitors for the high sheriff, Messrs. Allen and Halpin, who were advised by their counsel in the matter. This was done by the authority of the Board of Works, owing to the public interest in the question in dispute, namely, the extent of the courthouse premises at Cootehill. For the same reason, and with the authority of the Board, the surveyor attended and gave evidence at the trial.

  Evicted Tenants (West Kerry).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the number of evicted tenants reinstated under the Evicted Tenants Act in the Parliamentary division of West Kerry; and how are the records of reinstatements kept for each county, whether by estate, parish, union, or otherwise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The records of the Estates Commissioners are kept by counties, and not by parishes, unions, or Parliamentary divisions. I am, therefore, unable to give the number of evicted tenants reinstated in West Kerry.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked what is the cause of the delay in making a grant to Mr. Frank Butler, of Coolbane, Killorglin, county Kerry, evicted tenant on the Hart Minors estate; whether the evicted tenant was reinstated without any assistance from the Estates Commissioners, who have since done nothing for him; and when do they propose to consider his case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have sanctioned a grant of £80 for the purchase of stock and £80 for buildings in this case. Butler has let the lands for grazing, and he is to communicate with the Commissioners' inspector when he proposes to work the lands himself.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man has not been able to get back to his holding, and that he is actually being prosecuted for rent before he has got back?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is contrary to my information, which is that he has Jet land for grazing purposes, and that he can have the sum as soon as it his intention to work the land.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether the Estates Commissioners have actually sued this man?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will.

  Intermediate Education (Ireland).
  Mr. McKEANasked what, if any, provision will be made for the deficit existing in the funds available for intermediate education in Ireland during the interval between the present time and the furnishing of its Report by the committee which it is proposed to set up to consider the relations between Imperial and local taxation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I do not know how long the interval referred to in the question will be it is impossible for me to give any definite answer.

  Castletown Bere (Election Disturbances).
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that stones were thrown at a meeting held in Castletown Bere immediately before the latest General Election; that the Parliamentary candidate and his friends were driven from the platform by a fusillade of stones; that a policeman received a blow from a stone; that the windows of the hotel immediately behind the platform were broken; and, seeing that a large force of police were present under the command of a county inspector and that the stone-throwers were well known to the police, will he explain why no arrests were made and no prosecutions instituted in connection with this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the occasion of a political meeting at Castletown Bere on 10th December last, some stone-throwing took place, during which a policeman was struck, but not seriously injured, and some windows were broken in the hotel opposite which the meeting was held. The speakers had not, however, to leave the platform. The police at once pursued the stone-throwers. No complaints were made, and no one was injured, except the policeman referred to. There was no arrest or prosecution, as the police were unable to identify the stone-throwers.
  Mr. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Inspector Byrne who was in charge of the constabulary force, when asked why he did not arrest the man whom he saw strike the policeman, said he gave him a stroke of a stick which was sufficient?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I should not like to interfere with the discretion of so high an authority.

  Fishermen's Cottages (Ireland).
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked whether the definition of an agricultural labourer in the Labourers Acts has frequently been held by inspectors of the Local Government Board not to embrace deep-sea fishermen; whether he is aware that eight or nine claims of fishermen from the Baltimore districts were rejected at the inquiry recently held into an improvement scheme of the Skibbereen Rural District Council; and, in view of this fact, will he introduce a special clause into his Labourers Bill entitling fishermen as such without any limiting qualifications to cottages and allotments of land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Local Government Board that only one application for a cottage lodged by a fisherman in connection with the scheme of the Skibbereen Rural District Council was disallowed on the ground that the applicant did not work for hire, as required by the definition of agricultural labourer. Six applications from fishermen for additional allotments were rejected on other grounds. As regards the rest of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to a similar question asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether the definition of an agricultural labourer in Section 93 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, has been variously interpreted by inspectors of the Local Government Board, some holding that the expression, any person working for hire in a rural district whose average wages do not exceed 2s. 6d. a day, means 2s. 6d. a day for six days of the week; whilst others maintain that it means this amount for the seven days of the week; whether he is aware that numerous labourers have had their claims rejected owing to the six-day interpretation of certain inspectors; and whether, seeing that the average of 2s. 6d. a day was intended to apply to every day in the year including Sundays, he will, so

  1507
  as to remove all future misconception on this point, introduce an Amendment into the Labourers Bill now before Parliament which will put an end to the conflict of opinion at present existing in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not aware that there has been any difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the section. If the labourer earns not more than 2s. 6d. a day, even though he works seven days in the week, he comes within the new class of agricultural workers defined in Section 93 of the Irish Land Act of 1903. No amendment of the existing law appears to be required.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: May I ask if 2s. 6d. applies to every day of the week including Sunday?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A man who earns not more than 2s. 6d., although he earns it seven days a week, comes within the new Clause.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked whether it has yet been decided, as between the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board, which of these two bodies are to deal with the reinstatement of evicted tenants in the congested counties on the West Coast of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners deal with all cases under the Evicted Tenants Act in the Congested Districts Counties and a special arrangement has been agreed to by the Congested Districts Board and the Commissioners as regards cases arising on estates purchased by the Board.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Have the Estates Commissioners compulsory powers in the congested districts counties for the reinstatement of evicted tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe they have.

  Voting by Ballot (House of Commons).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to securing the freest possible expression of the will of the people by their duly elected representatives, he would favour the introduction of the system of voting by ballot in this House, and making it an offence punishable by heavy penalties for any Whip or other party official to infringe the secrecy of such ballot?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would it be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to vouchsafe any reason for that somewhat comprehensive answer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That depends upon who the deputation is.

  Naval Strength.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in stating in his speech on our standard of naval strength on 26th May, 1909, that the end was to ensure for this country in any conceivable condition, and against all possible hazards, unassailable naval superiority which would give us complete command of the sea, and make any attempt to interfere with any part of the Empire or sea-borne commerce an impossibility, he is to be understood as ruling out of calculation, in computing our requisite naval strength, the fleets of any other Powers with whom we may, at the time, be on terms of intimate friendship?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that matters of this kind can be conveniently or adequately dealt with by question and answer. I can only refer the hon. Member to the speech which he quotes and to the speech made on the same occasion by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his absence an entirely new definition of the two-Power standard was laid down by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. YERBURGH: May I ask whether or not we are to understand that the Government arrived at no decision upon this particular question? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a question of supreme importance, and that in arriving at our standard of naval strength previous Governments had regard to the power of the fleets of other countries?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think this question shows the inconvenience of dealing with these matters by way of question and answer.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether it takes a longer time to make a battleship or an enemy?

  Enfranchisement of Copyholds.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Land Transfer Acts, a Bill will be introduced at an early date for the compulsory enfranchisement of copyholds?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not able to give any undertaking at present.

  Highland Land Legislation.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Prime Minister whether he will state if the policy and tactics of the Government necessitate the abandonment of Highland land legislation until Welsh Dissestablishment has been dealt with; and, if not, will the Government introduce a Scottish Land Bill to run concurrently with a Bill for Wales?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything at present to the answer which I gave my hon. Friend last week—20th March.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to separate any land legislation dealing with the Highlands from land legislation dealing with the whole of Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised there is no such intention.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the Government not pledged to bring in a Small Holders Land Bill for Scotland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer I gave last week deals explicitly with that point.
  Mr. W. F. ROCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since 1906 measures dealing exclusively with Scotland have been placed on the Statute Book, but that no such favour has been shown to Wales?

  Osborne Judgment.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the judgment in the Osborne case is being disregarded by many of the trade unions whose representatives in the House of Commons have been financed contrary to the rule then laid down; and whether it
  1510
  is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session to deal with the question of trade union funds?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as to the first part of the question, and I cannot at present make any statement as to the second part of the question.
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the speech made by the Leader of the Labour party in which he said that at a recent election forty members received financial assistance contrary to the Osborne judgment?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Until the hon. Member quoted that speech my attention had not been called to it.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to impute law-breaking to other hon. Members of this House?
  Mr. C. LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Leicester has called himself a breaker of the laws, and has openly defied and flaunted them?
  Mr. CROOKS: Are there any rabbits or dukes about?

  Municipal Reproductive Undertakings.
  Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the magnitude of the capital now involved in municipal reproductive undertakings and the increased range of legislation requiring accurate statistical data for its due consideration, he will carry out some of the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Right Hon. W. H. Smith, which reported in December, 1879, with regard to the establishment of a small central office for specialised statistical work to prevent overlapping and to supply the want of cooperation between Government Departments and different municipalities in the publication of statistics, and to collate and to deal with returns from different sources in their general as distinguished from their Departmental or local significance?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The suggestion is attended by many practical difficulties; but I will give further consideration to the question.

  Business after Easter Recess.
  Mr. MILDMAYasked whether the Prime Minister is able to say what business will be taken when the House reassembles after the Easter recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement on this subject next week.

  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries (Advisory Committee).
  Major WHITEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed by the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee with the constitution of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Subjects; that no representative of any English fishery board has been appointed to that Committee; and whether he will endeavour to secure that in respect to this, as well as with regard to grants for fishery development, England may receive at least some share of the consideration which has been extended to Scotland and Ireland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the constitution of this Committee has caused great dissatisfaction in Lancashire, and that it is composed of precisely those bodies who are already getting more than their fair share of Government grants?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware of that.
  Mr. MORRELL: Will the Prime Minister inquire into the matter?

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. FLAVINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state if the Estates Commissioners have power under the Land Act of 1909 to buy tenanted lands direct from the landlord, or by purchase agreements signed by the tenants and lodged with the Estates Commissioners, in the congested counties in the West of Ireland with or without the consent of the Congested Districts Board?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): If the hon. Member will refer to Section 58 of the Irish Land Act of 1909, he will, I think, have no difficulty in coining to the conclusion that with the consent of the Congested Districts Board the Estates Commissioners can buy
  1512
  tenanted lands in congested districts, but that without such consent they cannot buy any land in those districts unless it is required for the purposes of the Evicted Tenants Act.

  Lissenhall Disturbances.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any details concerning the recent disturbances at Lissenhall?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The question probably refers to the occurrences on the night of the 11th instant when ten iron gates on the property of Miss Alice Carroll, county Tipperary, were wrenched from their fastenings and thrown on the ground, and a field of about five acres was scored over by a plough. The marks were made as if to divide the field into plots. A claim for compensation has been lodged.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for these outrages, and can he say what compensation has been paid?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know. I only know there has been a claim, but I do not know the amount.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there have been any arrests in this case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

  Housing Accommodation (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether he is aware that there are large bodies of rural workers and artisans in Ireland to whom the benefits of the Labourers' Acts in the matter of better housing do not apply; whether the masses of these men and their families are compelled to live in dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and for which exorbitant rents are charged; and, seeing that no legislative machinery exists for providing them with better housing accommodation, will he extend the definition of an agricultural labourer so as to include them, or propose some special legislation which will put them at least on the same footing as those workmen and artisans for whose housing needs urban councils and town commissioners are empowered to cater?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The object of the Labourers' Bill now awaiting Second Reading is merely to continue the benefits of the existing Acts to the persons qualified under them to obtain cottages, and who have not yet been provided with

  1513
  them. That this class stands in need of proper cottage accommodation is undoubted. Having regard to the financial provisions of these Acts it would be impossible to extend them in the manner suggested.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any special legislation will be introduced?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not at present in a position to suggest the introduction of any special legislation.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the necessity exists for such legislation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe the necessity for it exists all over the world, as well as in Ireland. There can be no doubt about it.

  Calcutta Improvement Scheme.
  Mr. SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of Stale for India whether the Calcutta improvement scheme involves the levy of an export duty on raw jute of two annas per 400-pound bale; and, if so, whether the Government of India will be asked to exempt all exports of raw jute to Dundee or other British ports?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): I have nothing to add to the answer given on 21st March to the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey.

  Burma (Tuition in Schools).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has now received any information as to religion or morality being made subjects of tuition in schools in Burma under State control; and whether the Government of Bombay is taking any measures to supply text books on morality for the use of its schools?
  Mr. MONTAGU: As an experimental measure facilities are being afforded for the imparting of religious instruction in those Government and local board schools in Burma where parents and guardians ask for it. Such instruction may be given in the school building out of school hours by teachers selected by the parents, subject to a veto by the inspectors of schools in the case of undesirable persons. No member of the school staff may be employed to teach religion. I may add that no preference is given to any particular religion; that pupils can only be taught religion at the request of their parents;
  1514
  that public funds do not contribute to the cost, and that no ceremony or ritual is permitted on the school premises. As regards Bombay, the subject has been discussed at a conference over which Sir George Clarke presided last April, and a handbook of moral lessons for the use of teachers is in course of preparation.
  Captain MURRAY: May I ask whether the educational system in Burma is not similar in almost every detail to the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the Education Bill of 1906?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members can form their own opinion about that.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Considering that Indian morality is based upon religion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the Bombay text book officially to be used, precautions will be taken to avoid anything that could annoy any of the religious communities on such matters as capital punishment, the remarriage of widows, polygamy, and child marriage?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I think in reply to the hon. Member I had better read an extract from the right hon. Sir George Clarke, Governor of Bombay:—
  "What is needed are books of this kind in which the moral lessons should be drawn wholly from Indian life, history, biography, mythology, and literature."

  Factory Law (India).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Under-Secretary if he will state what are the ages at which children are allowed to work in textile factories under the new Indian factory law, and in other than textile factories under the existing factory law?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The age limits of children in the new Act, as in the existing Act, are nine to fourteen years for all classes of factories alike. I will cause a copy of the new Act to be placed in the Library when it reaches this country.
  Mr. BARTONasked whether, as the now Factory Act at present before the Government of India makes no improvement in the hours of women workers, he proposes to take any steps to secure the same relative improvement for the women as for the men?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Both Sir Hamilton Freer-Smith's Indian Factories Committee and the Labour Commission reported that as regards day work the conditions of employment of women in Indian mills was satisfactory. Women were generally em-

  1515
  ployed on piecework, were free to come and go as they pleased, and of their own accord worked less than the statutory eleven hours. Their physique was uniformly excellent. In abolishing night work for women in textile factories, and in narrowing the limits within which the day employment of women is permitted, the new Act has gone as far as appears to be demanded.

  Cholera and Typhoid in India.
  Mr. BARTONasked whether, seeing that unfiltered drinking water has been a cause of cholera and typhoid, he will endeavour to have it made compulsory on all factory owners in India to supply a reasonable quantity of filtered drinking water to all employés during working hours?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The maintenance of an adequate supply of good drinking water in Indian factories is already secured by rules made under the Factories Act by the local governments. The Labour Commission found that little, if any, exception could be taken to the arrangements for supplying water; and that in many factories special attention had been given to the question.

  Match Manufacturers (India).
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether steps have been taken to secure the adoption by the Indian Legislature of provisions forbidding the manufacture of matches with yellow phosphorus in India, or their importation from that country?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India have informed the Secretary of State of their intention to legislate on the lines of the White Phosphorus Matches Prohibition Act, which prohibits the manufacture, sale and importation of such matches in this country.

  British East Africa and Uganda (Land Leases).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether land is still being alienated in fee simple, or on long leases at fee farm rents, in British East Africa or Uganda; and, if not, what is the longest lease granted without any possibility of revision of rent?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): With regard to the alienation of Crown land in the East Africa Protectorate, the policy which the Governor has been instructed
  1516
  to follow will be found on pp. 29 sqq of Command Paper 4117. That policy contemplates the grant of freehold only on homestead farms up to 320 acres, all other grants being made on leasehold tenancies of ninety-nine years with a revision of rent at the end of the thirty-third and sixty-sixth years. It is difficult to summarise satisfactorily within the limits of a reply to a question the system hitherto followed in Uganda; but, roughly, the system has been one of leasehold tenancies for different periods up to a maximum of ninety-nine years, the rent increasing with the period of the lease, coupled with the right of acquiring the freehold of the whole, or a part, of the land leased on certain conditions of development. The question of revising this system is under my consideration, and in the meantime the Governor has been instructed not to grant any lease with the prospect of acquiring the freehold of more than 1,000 acres.

  Coolie Labour.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the Governor of Jamaica has decided, with the advice of his Privy Council, that henceforth the planters who require East Indian coolie labour must pay the whole cost of their introduction and repatriation themselves instead of the burden being thrown on the whole community, including those planters who employ free labour; and whether this change is due to the action or advice of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. The change is not due to my action, but has my approval.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary if he will state what number of indentured Indian coolies are employed in Natal under agreement between that Colony and the Government of India; whether the suicide rate among these coolies is equal to 501 per million; if so, whether he will take steps for immediate investigation into its causes; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of stopping the exportation of coolies to South Africa, especially in view of the treatment they receive there and of the conduct of the Governments of Natal and the Transvaal towards their free kindred?
  Mr. MONTAGU: According to the latest statistics the number of Indian coolies under indenture in Natal was 40,931. The number of suicides amongst

  1517
  these indentured labourers in 1909 was twenty. My hon. Friend will see, if he compares these actual figures with his calculation, that this is an excellent example of the dangers attendant on the use of percentages; or more accurately permillionages. The treatment of indentured coolies has received the careful attention of the authorities in South Africa and India. It has already been decided that indentured emigration from India to Natal shall cease with effect from the 1st July next, on the ground not that there has been any general ill-treatment of the coolies in Natal, but that the unsatisfactory position cannot be perpetuated which was created by the divergence between the Indians' and the Colonists' standpoints, and the absence of any guarantee that Indians will be accepted as permanent citizens of the South African Union after expiration of their indentures. An announcement in these terms was made in the Indian Legislative Council in January.

  Gold Coast (Surface Rights of Land).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Frank Cogill before Lord Sanderson's Committee to the effect that the mining companies are assuming more or less that they have the surface rights of the lands conceded to them in the Gold Coast; and what steps are being taken to safeguard tribal rights in land in these areas?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The exact extent of the surface rights of the several mining companies on the Gold Coast is one on which I prefer not to give an opinion, as it may probably be made the subject of judicial decision. The law provides that no concession shall be valid unless the customary rights of natives are reasonably protected; and it is the policy of the Government to preserve the tribal system so far as possible.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to a company recently floated where these land rights are stated to have been granted by the chief to the company?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Yes, my attention has been directed to that.

  Imperial Conference.
  Viscount WOLMERasked whether any information has been received from the Canadian Government indicating that it
  1518
  is their intention at the forthcoming Conference to ask to be relieved from the obligation of extending most-favoured-nation treatment to foreign countries in the case of treaties negotiated by the Mother Country to which the Canadian Government have not expressly adhered; and whether any proposals have been made by the Canadian Government to enable them to negotiate treaties of the reciprocal character specially favoured by the United States?
  Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir.

  Canada and United States (International Joint Commission).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that the United States Government have named three members of an International Joint Commission which is hereafter to deal with all issues between Canada and the United States, independently of Downing Street, and that such Commission will exercise both legislative and judicial functions in respect of boundary waters and all other questions involving the rights, obligations, and interests of the United States and the Dominion of Canada, either in relation to each other or to their respective inhabitants, if both Governments agree to refer such questions to the Commission for decision; and, if so, whether he has any Papers to lay upon the Table?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The President of the United States of America has appointed three Commissioners under the Treaty of 11th January, 1909. The hon. Gentleman appears to have misapprehended the scope of the Treaty, which does not provide for the settlement of all questions independently of Downing Street, inasmuch as Article 10 stipulates for the consent of His Majesty the King. The full text is printed in the Treaty Series Command Paper 5,223, and it is not proposed to lay more Papers.

  Leadless-glazed Ware.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the recommendation in the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the dangers attendant on the use of lead in the potteries, in which they urged that Government Departments should insist on being supplied with lead-

  1519
  less-glazed ware; whether he will state what action has been taken by the Colonial Office in this connection; and whether only those glazed bricks, sanitary ware, electric fittings, and domestic articles are purchased by the department in which leadless-glaze has been employed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: This Report has already engaged my attention. The Colonial Office does not purchase for its own use any of the goods mentioned, though a small amount of crockery was obtained a short time ago for a refreshment committee, most of which was, I am informed, leadless-glazed ware.

  British East Africa (Mail Contract).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the conveyance of mails for British East Africa still costs £9,000 per annum, although a saving of £7,200 per annum would result from sending the mails by French or German packets; and whether this shipping bounty has the sanction of the Treasury; and, if so, on what grounds?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The net cost of the conveyance of mails for British East Africa is as stated by the Postmaster-General in his reply to the hon. Member on 2nd March last. The present subsidy payment was agreed to by the Treasury in return for very considerable improvements in the service of steamships to the Protectorate. The improvements thus obtained, together with the other advantages attending a service of British vessels, are held to justify the payment of the existing subsidy.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the improvement was in the mail service, accelerating the delivery of the mails, or whether it was merely in order to gratify the shipping companies?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It was certainly not to gratify the shipping companies. Whilst, of course, regard must be had to the interests of the taxpayers, the amenities of British Colonies have also to be taken into consideration.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a direct service of British vessels running out to Mombasa and that this service is absolutely unnecessary either for mails or passengers?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot agree with that.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when this subsidy was arranged?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not like to speak definitely from memory. It is an old-standing contract.
  Mr. MORRELL: When will it come up for revision?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should want notice of that.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Does the Colony contribute anything to this £7,200?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: These points of detail, if I may say so, had better be put by notice.

  Excise and Customs Officials.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the discontent prevailing amongst Excise and Customs officials in consequence of the prolonged delay in issuing the Report of the committee of inquiry, and in settling the question of salaries, an increase in which was promised to the rank and file of the amalgamated service two years ago; whether he can now state when the Report will be issued; and whether, in the meantime, the salaries question will be dealt with and the promised increases made?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No promise of increased salaries has been made to Customs and Excise officials. No unavoidable delay in presenting the Report of the Amalgamation Committee has occurred—but until it has been both presented to and considered by the Treasury—which will be done as soon as possible—the question of salaries and conditions of service cannot be otherwise considered.

  State Departments (Appointments).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Return showing the number of additional posts created since January, 1906, in each of the departments of State; the amount of the salaries attached thereto; and the appointments made by nomination and as the result of competitive examination, respectively?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will endeavour to give the Return asked for if the hon. Member will kindly confer with me first as to the exact form it should take.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in the Return those additions to the salaries of existing officials caused by the new duties put upon them by the new land taxes?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will refer to his hon. Friend, I shall get the result of their mutual conference when they come to me.

  Teachers' Pension Scheme (Scotland).
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked what are the objections to the refunding to the Scottish teachers of the contributions paid by them towards a pension scheme under the Act of 1898, having regard to the draft superannuation scheme for teachers recently issued?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Section 1 (2) (c) of the Elementary School Teachers, Superannuation, Act, 1898, expressly provides that there shall be no return of contributions; and the Treasury have no power to authorise any departure from the terms of that Act.

  Lewisham (Late Clerk to Surveyor of Taxes).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked if any and, if so, what compensation or allowance can be made to the dependents of Mr. J. Carroll, late clerk to the surveyor of taxes at Lewisham?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Treasury have authorised the award of the gratuity and the additional allowance under the Superannuation Act, 1909 (together £29 3s. 3d.), to which Mr. Carroll's length of service entitled him. They have no power to make any grant to his dependents in addition to this award.

  Licence Values (Scotland).
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to fixing licence values in Scotland, whether he will consider the fact that the amount of alcoholic liquor taken in for sale during the year by every licensed house can easily be obtained, and the licence value calculated thereon; and whether he is aware that the licensed trade of Scotland, while not objecting to find the money required by the Treasury, is unanimously of opinion that the system suggested above is much simpler and more reasonable, more equitable to the trade, and can be worked without difficulty or expense?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The points to which the hon. Member calls attention will be
  1522
  carefully considered before any proposals for altering the system of assessment to Licence Duty are submitted to Parliament.
  Captain WARING: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the unfairness of the present system, hurry forward a new scheme, and will it be made retrospective?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is purely a matter for next year's Finance Bill. It certainly cannot be considered this year.
  Mr. WATT: Can this scheme be worked without difficulty or expense?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly, I think, with difficulty; I cannot answer about expense.

  Death Duties.
  Mr. JOHN LYTTELTONasked whether a woman who was legally married, and subsequently left a widow upon the death of her legal husband, is entitled to be treated as the widow of her late husband for the purposes of the Death Duties, in spite of the fact of her having been the daughter of her late husband's deceased wife's sister?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Speaking generally, if the marriage is valid in this country, the answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the relation of the husband and wife was before marriage?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice of that question.

  Income Tax (Local Taxation Licence Offices, Taunton).
  Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to reconsider his decision to charge for Income Tax the Local Taxation Licence Offices for the county of Somerset in the borough of Taunton, in view of the fact that during the last four months of 1910 the local authority for the county collected additional Motor Car Licence Duty under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, amounting to no less than £2,481 13s. 6d. for the benefit of the National Exchequer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Board of Inland Revenue are advised that the premises in question are chargeable to Income Tax, Schedule A under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, and the facts adduced by the hon. Member do not legally justify the suggested remission of that duty.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a little set-off against the Dewsbury case?
  Mr. SANDERS: What is the subtle distinction by which the offices of the Chief Constable and the Inspector of Weights and Measures escape this charge while the Local Taxation Licence Office does not?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think I should like notice of that. I am afraid I did not catch the whole terms of the question.

  Eastern Central District Post Office (London).
  Dr. ADDISONasked the Postmaster-General whether a number of porters at the Eastern Central District Office have been employed for some time on despatching duties, which were formerly performed by sorters, and subsequently by the old class of senior postmen and lobby officers; and whether these duties belong to those of the head-porter class; if so, whether he will cause these vacancies to be filled by the promotion of porters to the rank of head porters?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Certain porters at the Eastern Central District Office are employed on the despatching platform on work appropriate to their class, and not to the class of head porters. At some other offices a small portion of work of the same description is performed by head porters, not because it is considered to be proper to that class, but for the purpose of filling up the officers' time. It should in strictness be performed by porters, and will be given to officers of that class as opportunity offers.

  Secretaryships to the Post Office (Scotland and Ireland).
  Mr. WEIRasked on what grounds it is proposed to abolish the office of Secretary to the Post Office in Scotland now located in Edinburgh; and whether any movement is on foot to abolish the similar position for Ireland now held by the Secretary to the Post Office located in Dublin?
  Mr. SAMUEL: It is not proposed to abolish the office of Secretary to the Post Office in Scotland or in Ireland.

  Postal Facilities.
  Captain WARINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received a
  1524
  petition from the inhabitants of the upper district of Glenrinnes, Banffshire, with reference to a daily postal delivery and greater facilities for a telephone service; and whether the matter will receive his favourable consideration?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The petition was received. It did not deal with the question of telephones. I regret to find that the cost of the existing service on four days a week at the places concerned is already so considerable and the number of letters conveyed so small, that I should not be justified in sanctioning further expenditure for providing a delivery every week-day. Should I receive any representations with respect to a telephone service at Glenrinnes I should be glad to make inquiry into the matter.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether he has further considered the possibility of affording improved postal facilities to the village of Bowerchalke, in the county of Wilts, so as not unduly to hamper, as now, the industries of milk production and the cultivation of watercress carried on in that district; and whether he will consider the desirability of carrying out the suggestions contained in a letter written on his behalf to the clerk to the Bowerchalke parish council on 31st October, 1906, without attaching the condition of a monetary contribution, which so poor a village can ill afford to pay?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Further inquiries in this matter are in progress, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result as soon as possible.

  Post Office Stores (Ireland).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the expenditure for Post Office stores required for use in Ireland during each of the past ten years, and the value of the stores purchased each year from Irish contractors during the same period?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The compilation of the Return asked for by the hon. Member even for the last five years wall take some little time, but, if he is willing that it should be so limited, I will have it prepared for that period, and will send it to him. To obtain the information for the previous five years would entail very considerable expense.

  Postal Administration (Ireland).
  Mr. MacVEAGHasked the character of the alterations proposed in the matter of postal administration in Ireland; whether

  1525
  effect will be given to the recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee that the administrative machinery should be decentralised, and that the powers of decision and general scope of responsibility for the secretaries in Ireland and Scotland should be widened; and, if not, on what grounds this recommendation is to be ignored?
  Mr. SAMUEL: A scheme of decentralisation will come into force on 1st April under which, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants, the powers of decision of the secretaries in Ireland and Scotland, and of the surveyors and the postmasters of the larger offices will be substantially enlarged.

  Free Postcards and Letter-Cards.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General if he has received any, and, if so, how many, written protests against his proposal to issue free postcards and letter cards to the public?
  Mr. SAMUEL: An appeal to stationers and others interested in the stationery trade was recently organised to send me a card of protest on an appointed day. 1,431 such cards of protest were received by me, and in addition the editor of a stationery trade journal has forwarded to me about 3,000 cards which had been addressed to him during the last few months.

  Grangemouth Post Office.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a change made in the Post Office arrangements of Grangemouth, owing to the development of the New Town, has led to the neglect and inadequate provision of postal conveniences in the Old Town; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the postal facilities hitherto enjoyed by the Old Town shall not be curtailed, but that a sub-office, used exclusively for Post Office business, shall be maintained?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Instructions have already been given for a sub-post office to be opened in Grange Street, Grangemouth, to take the place of the head office recently removed to the New Town. The business transacted at the sub-office and the hours during which the office is open on week-days will be the same as at the head office. The business is not sufficient to warrant an office entirely devoted to post office work.

  Japanese War Ships.
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the "Aki" and "Satsuma" are included in the thirteen pre" Dreadnought "battleships which Japan will have in 1915; and whether these ships are superior in fighting value to the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The "Satsuma" was laid down five months before the "Dreadnought," and with the "Aki," practically a sister ship, has been considered as a pre-"Dreadnought." These ships are of greater tonnage and more powerful armament than the "Lord Nelson" and the "Agamemnon," and may therefore be considered as superior in fighting value.

  "Invincible" Type (British and Foreign Navies).
  Mr. YERBURGHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the number of cruisers of the "Invincible" type under present programmes in 1915 of the following Powers: Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, and France?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Assuming that it is intended to include ships completed by 1st April, 1915, the number for Great Britain will be nine, excluding the cruiser building for Australia. To this number there would have to be added any cruisers of this type that may be included in the programme for 1912–13. As regards the other countries mentioned in the question, the numbers are as follows:—

  Germany

  …

  …

  …

  …

  6

  Japan

  …

  …

  …

  …

  1

  Austria

  …

  …

  …

  …

  0

  Italy

  …

  …

  …

  …

  0

  France

  …

  …

  …

  …

  0

  Naval Establishments (Clerical Staffs).
  Mr. DUNCANasked what the minor changes affecting the clerical staffs of His Majesty's naval establishments are; and can he give a definite date when they will be promulgated?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The minor changes referred to are the grant of charge pay to certain writers and the promotion of a few others. Some of these changes have already been promulgated, and the remainder will be promulgated as soon as the personal questions involved have been settled.

  London Dockyard Writers (Allowances).
  Mr. DUNCANasked whether, in view of the fact that the cost of living in London for dockyard writers was now only £25 a year more than in the dockyard towns, it is to be understood that the salaries of these officials and those serving in the dockyards and other naval establishments will be increased by at least £15 a year to meet the increase in the cost of living since the London allowance of £40 was fixed; if it is proposed to extend the London allowance to all members of the writing staff serving in the London district; and, if so, will these increases take effect from 10th March, 1910?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is the fact that amongst the recommendations of the Committee on Writing Staff was the proposal to reduce the London allowance from £40 to £25 a year. This has been promulgated, but I must point out that a number of other recommendations of the committee are still under consideration.

  Boy Artificers (Royal Navy).
  Viscount MORPETHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under Rules 18 and 19 of the Regulations for the entry and training of boy artificers in His Majesty's Navy, a county with a long seaboard and a sea-faring population would be considered as likely to supply suitable candidates; and whether he will have such counties included in the Admiralty List?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not altogether concur that a county with a long seaboard would be more likely to supply suitable candidates for admission as boy artificers than a large engineering or industrial centre. In any case, in view of the limited number of boys who can be admitted, I am afraid I can give no general undertaking as to the inclusion of a particular class of counties in the list. But the application of any educational authority to be included will be considered on its merits and in relation to service requirements.
  Viscount MORPETH: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why some counties have preference over others?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot admit that is the case. If the Noble Lord would like to go through the list with me I shall be glad to see him.

  Admiralty Contracts (Leadless Glaze Ware)
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his
  1528
  attention has been called to the recommendation in the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the dangers attendant on the use of lead in the Potteries, in which they urged that Government departments should insist on being supplied with leadless-glazed ware; whether he will state what action has been taken by the Admiralty in this connection; and whether only those glazed bricks, sanitary ware, electric fittings, and domestic articles are purchased by the department in which leadless glaze has been employed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, though it should be remarked that low solubility glazes, as well as leadless, were comprised in the recommendation of the Committee. As regards glazed bricks, and sanitary ware, leadless glaze has been generally specified or used for supplies to the Admiralty. All recent purchases of porcelain insulators, etc., for Admiralty electric work have been in leadless or low solubility glaze, and this will be continued if experience shows that there is no sacrifice in durability or efficiency. As regards domestic table and toilet ware, a very great advance in the direction recommended by the Committee has recently been made by the Admiralty. The latest contracts have provided for leadless glaze in respect of a large number of articles, and for low solubility glaze in respect of the great majority of the remaining articles, subject to the quality proving satisfactory when bulk deliveries come forward. There is good reason to hope that the quality will prove satisfactory. In only a comparatively few special cases has it been found impossible at present to obtain leadless or low solubility glazed articles of suitable quality at a reasonable price.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman distinguish the amount of leadless glaze from low solubility glaze supplied under Admiralty contracts?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot do it offhand. I will try and get the information if desired.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is the leadless glaze so called really leadless glaze?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That I cannot undertake to say. I will ascertain the tests.
  Mr. DUNCAN: Will the hon. Gentleman send a copy of the answer to the Postmaster-General?

  British Boots and Shoes (Exports).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any recent statistics as to the exports of British-made boots and shoes, as to the imports of such articles from the United states of America, and as to the increase or decrease of either exports or imports?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The exports of leather boots and shoes from the United Kingdom reached 1,088,000 dozen pairs last year, of a declared value of £3,030,000. These figures, which are the largest recorded, represent an increase of nearly a quarter of a million dozen pairs, and over a quarter of a million pounds sterling over the figures of 1909. The imports from the United States of America amounted to 70,000 dozen pairs, of a value of £358,000, a decrease of nearly 8,000 dozen pairs, and of £23,000 on 1909. Imports from other sources also declined. The increase in exports and decrease in imports has continued during the first two months of the current year.

GUN RUNNERS IN PERSIAN GULF (BRITISH EXPEDITION.)
Mr. DILLON,in accordance with private notice, asked the Under-Secretary for India whether his attention has been drawn to the report that a military expedition to the Persian Gulf has been sanctioned by the Government of India; whether he can state the force which will constitute this expedition; what is the object of the expedition; what instructions will be given to the officers in command; whether these instructions will include permission to land on Persian territory without the consent of the Persian Government, or at Koweit without the consent of the Turkish Government; whether the Home Government was consulted before the expedition Was sanctioned, and, if so, what were the considerations which induced the Government to despatch a military expedition to the Persian Gulf at this juncture?
Mr. MONTAGU: Last year a force of Indian troops was employed to operate from two ships on the Persian coast in connection with general operations for the suppression of the arms traffic, and the employment of a similar force this year has been sanctioned by His Majesty's Government. Troops are landed only when necessary in order to cut off parties of gunrunners who may land arms or attempt to
1530
damage telegraph wires, and are then immediately re-embarked. The reference to Koweit is irrelevant, as the operations are not within some hundreds of miles of that port. As regards Persia, His Majesty's Government are acting under an agreement with the Persian Government in taking all necessary measures for the suppression of the traffic in arms which has been prohibited by that Government. The force is under the command of the Naval Commander-in-Chief, who issues the necessary detailed instructions. The renewal of these measures is necessitated at the present time by the activity of the persons engaged in smuggling arms into Persian territory.

DEWSBURY LICENCE HOLDERS.
Mr. BALFOUR: I should like to ask if I may with reference to this afternoon's Debate on the Revenue Bill a question of which I have sent the Financial Secretary to the Treasury private notice, and that is, whether what purports to be a copy of a letter written by the Minister for Education, appearing in the "Yorkshire Post," and which, I understand, alleges that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to come to an arrangement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which licensed victuallers in Dewsbury will receive certain relief and nobody else, is authentic or not. It is a very important point.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is quite true the right hon. Gentleman courteously gave me notice, but it has only reached me within the last three or four minutes. I have no knowledge whatever either of the letter or of its contents, or whether or not it is authentic. I understand my right hon. Friend is present, and I have no doubt he will be able to satisfy the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. BALFOUR: Then perhaps our legitimate curiosity can be satisfied by that right hon. Gentleman.
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I am afraid I am in no more fortunate circumstances than my right hon. Friend. I only heard of the letter five minutes ago, and I am not sure what has and what has not been printed in the "Yorkshire Post." Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of the letter?
Mr. BALFOUR: Certainly. I will read it. It purports to be written to the local

1531
secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Association, and it runs as follows:—
"Dear Sir,
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me it will be unnecessary for your deputation to come to London, as he agrees to accept an Amendment of the Finance Act relieving you, provided, however, that it can be done in such a way as not to make an opening for any further places to come in. I am trying to arrange this; I telegraphed to you to-day, 'Have made arrangements with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.'
"Yours faithfully,
"WALTER RUNCIMAN."
Mr. RUNCIMAN: I remember writing a letter somewhat to that effect to the secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Association in reply to a petition which they sent up to me and which they asked me to present to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think there, were any other places in the same position as Stoke and Dewsbury, and I understood they were the only boroughs which had been extended at that period—at the time of the passing of the Finance Act of 1909. I conveyed to the Licensed Victuallers the message which was given to me. I cannot say that any intention was expressed on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to deal with places which in the future might be extended and which would be affected by the provisions of the Finance Act of 1909. On that I expressed no opinion at the time, and I cannot undertake to express any opinion now, but the message conveyed to me that if there were no other places in the position of Stoke and Dewsbury he had no objection to the relief being granted, and that is the message I sent down.

BRITISH SECURITIES (PUBLIC TRUSTEE).
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to a somewhat novel matter of privilege, and I have to apologise for not being able to give you previous notice of my intention, because the matter came to my notice only shortly before entering the House. Yesterday I had on the Order Paper a question addressed to the President of the Board of Trade asking him whether it was a fact that the Public Trustee was in the habit of advising the sale of British securities with a view to re-investment in foreign stocks, and as I came to the House I received an intimation in which I was asked to address that question to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I received from him a letter asking me to put the
1532
question down to him on some other day. In consequence of that, I notified that the question would be asked on Monday next. I was therefore surprised when my attention was called to the fact that to-day's "Times," under a special heading, repeats my question, and gives in great detail what purports to be the answer to it, and collaterally with that gives a Memorandum from the Public Trustee counteracting the effect of the answer. My point is this: one of two things must have happened. Either the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and I am very far from making such a suggestion—must, while asking me to postpone my question to Monday next, have forwarded the answer in advance to the public Press, or the Public Trustee, having prepared what he conceived would be accepted as a matter of course by the Minister as an answer to the question, must have attached some explanatory memoranda calculated to counteract the effect and have sent the memoranda and the question and answer to the Press without waiting till the question was put in this House. In either case I submit a gross violation of the rights of private Members has been committed, and I ask you to administer a suitable admonition to whoever may be the culprit.
Mr. SPEAKER: It is certainly very improper that answers should appear in the newspapers before they are delivered here. I am afraid that I cannot throw any light on the mystery of how these things get into the newspapers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows more about that than I do.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: My attention was drawn at somewhere about 12 o'clock this morning to the memorandum which appears in "The Times" to-day. I need hardly say that no answer which had not been given to the hon. Gentleman had been in any way communicated to the Press. Undoubtedly there was an unfortunate misunderstanding in the office of the Public Trustee, and I have addressed a suitable communication to the officials.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: I think the Prime Minister has given an indication of the business for next week. Perhaps he will fill up the details
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall begin the Committee stage of the

1533
Parliament Bill, and continue it on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Wednesday night we hope to take, after that has eon-eluded, the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill—that stage being always regarded as practically a formal stage. On Thursday, Committee of Supply will be taken, and the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty will be considered, and an opportunity will arise for the discussion of what is known as the Archer-Shee case. As to the business for Friday, I will make a statement at the beginning of the week. Perhaps I may take the opportunity of saying with regard to the business on the Paper to-night, if the Revenue Bill is disposed of, the order in which the Votes will be taken will be somewhat different to that in which they are on the Paper because in compliance with the request which comes from the other side of the House, the first Vote taken will be the Naval Vote 15, which is for Superannuation. The next Vote will be Vote 7, the Royal Naval Reserve, and the third Vote No. 14, Naval Pensioners. Perhaps I may say that I hope the House will allow us to get the Report of the outstanding Army Votes, which are all non-effective Votes.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether it would be possible to discuss other questions than the Archer-Shee case on Thursday next?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, on the First Lord's salary any question can be discussed.
Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the debate on the Shops Bill terminate to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Revenue Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS PRESENTED.
  EASTER OFFERINGS (EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the exemption of Voluntary Offerings to Clergymen and Ministers from Taxation," presented by EARL OF RONALDSHAY; supported by Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Harwood, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Edward Wood, and Mr. Bridgeman; to be read a second time upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HOUSES IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To facilitate the provision of accommodation for supplying food and of other
  1534
  improvements in connection with premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors by retail," presented by Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD; supported by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Staveley - Hill, Mr. Mason, Earl of Ronaldshay, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Goulding, Sir Alfred Cripps, Mr. Bridgeman, and Mr. Montague Barlow; to be read a second time upon Thursday next.

  LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the Enfranchisement of Leaseholds," presented by Mr. MACLEAN; supported by Mr. Brace, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Hay Morgan, Mr. Lewis Haslam, Major Guest, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Rowlands, and Mr. Webb; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th April.
  COPYRIGHT BILL.
  "To amend and consolidate the Law relating to Copyright," presented by Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON; supported by Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Mr. Tennant; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  EXPENSES OF AID TO POLICE BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to the payment of expenses incurred in aiding the police of any district by means of the employment of any part of His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces or of any members of the Police Force of another district," presented by Mr. SECRETARY CHURCHILL; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  PREVENTION OF DESTITUTION BILL.
  "To provide for the more effectual prevention of Destitution and the better organisation of Public Assistance," presented by Sir ROBERT PRICE; supported by Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. George Greenwood, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Hills, and Sir George White; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 27th April.
REVENUE BILL.
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Tobacco Duties.)
(1) The duties of Customs payable on tobacco shall, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, be reduced to the duties as would have been leviable thereon if the principal Act had not been passed.
(2) The Excise Duties payable on tobacco grown in Great Britain or Ireland shall, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, be reduced by one-half.
(3) The rates of drawback on tobacco exported from Great Britain or Ireland or deposited in a King's warehouse shall, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, be reduced in the case of imported tobacco to the rates set out in the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1906, and in the case of tobacco grown in Great Britain or Ireland to one-half of the rates set out in Part III. of the Fourth Schedule to the principal Act.—[Major Archer-Shee.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
4.0 P.M.
Major ARCHER-SHEE: In regard to the Clause I am submitting, I should like first of all to call the attention of the House to the way in which this duty has been altered in the last few years. In 1898 the duty stood at 2s. 8d. per lb., and was raised in 1900 to 3s., and in 1909 it was increased to 3s. 8d. I believe this taxation of tobacco presses very hardly indeed upon the poorest class of the community. The taxation has now reached an amount something like 550 per cent. of the tobacco which is ordinarily smoked by working men. That is to say, the tax on £100 worth of tobacco ordinarily smoked by working men amounts to no less than £550. That taxation on one commodity is very excessive indeed. I object to it also from the point of view of the taxpayer, because it falls upon only one section of the community. That is to say, supposing we have an adult male population of 12,000,000, this Tobacco Tax falls upon only practically ten out of that twelve millions. Anywhere between one and two millions of the adult males of the country are the only ones who escape the taxation altogether. Therefore it is an unfortunate sort of tax, and I think it should not be as excessive as it is. But from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would also urge its reduction. The amount of tobacco which has been imported for home consumption has fallen from 100,000,000 lbs. in 1908 to 98,000,000 lbs. in 1910. Although that 98,000,000 lbs. is an advance of 2,000,000 lbs. on that imported in 1909. yet at the same time it shows a very appreciable reduction from the amount which was imported before the extra tax of 8d. in the pound was imposed. In addition to that,
1536
the amount of tobacco on which a drawback was paid has fallen from 10,000,000 lbs. in 1908 to something like 9,000,000 lbs. in 1909, and under 8,000,000 lbs. in 1910, showing that the export trade has also been injured by this excessive taxation. The difference between the amounts in 1908 and 1910 on the amount exported upon which dawback was paid are equivalent to the difference on the amount imported for home consumption, and consequently the net amount paid on home consumption is, in the last year, almost the same as that retained for home consumption in 1908, namely 90,000,000 lbs. But it is some 70,000 lbs. less than that of the year 1908.
That shows most clearly that this excessive taxation upon tobacco has resulted in checking the consumption. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever intended the tax to have that effect. I think in the year 1910, which was according to all accounts a prosperous trade year, under ordinary circumstances we might have expected that there would have been an increased consumption and not a consumption which is only equal to that of two years before. The importation of cigars also has fallen since this heavy taxation has been put on. Cigars imported from Cuba in 1908 amounted to 1,155,000 lbs. This was reduced in 1909, and fell to 983,000 lbs in 1910. That again shews that this tax has arrived at that point at which the tax-yielding capacity of the commodity has more than met the tax-bearing capacity of the community, and it shews from the point of view of the taxpayer that it is acting as a deterrent on consumption, and therefore ought to be reduced. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under Free Trade?"] Under Free Trade the foreigner does not pay a tax upon a commodity on which there is no competition in this country, as has frequently been explained. The tax has another bearing, and that is as regards its effect upon those engaged in the trade of manufacturing and retailing tobacco. As regards manufacturers it has been stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member (Mr. Harry Lawson) that the reduction of licences granted to manufacturers has fallen off by something like twenty-six during the last year, while the retail licenses, instead of having a normal annual increase of 4,500, have fallen at the end of the last year for which figures are given by something like 7,000. That shews, if you add the normal increase to the decrement during the last year, a reduction of something like 10,000.

1537
It has been stated by independent manufacturers that their profits have fallen off very greatly owing to this tax, and they say the reason is that, as regards the working men's tobacco, the cheapest form which is sold at 3½d. an ounce, they have been able to shift the whole burden on to the shoulders of the consumer. That is, of course, what was, I presume, intended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he put the tax on. But it has had this curious effect as regards the more expensive forms of tobacco which are smoked by people who are better off, that the manufacturers have not been able to pass off the whole of the tax on to the shoulders of the consumers because owing to the higher price of the tobacco no coin of the realm exactly represents the tax, and the consequence is that the manufacturers have had to bear a very large portion of the tax. A great many of these manufacturers are feeling the pinch very severely, and some of them state that unless some remedy is granted, by some reduction of the tax, at any rate, they will undoubtedly have to cease their business. They point out that the only concern engaged in tobacco manufacturing which has shown a great profit in the last year has been the Imperial Tobacco Company, which is in the position of a trust in that it controls more than half the tobacco trade of the country. In their annual report it is stated:—
"This improvement, as compared with last year, was not due to the British trade, but largely to the Company's interest in undertakings operating abroad which yielded more profitable results."
Therefore, from the point of view of the taxpayer, this tax is too high, because it is checking the consumption of tobacco. From the point of view of the manufacturer it is too high, because it is checking the manufacture of tobacco and causing grave concern to the large firms which cater for the public need. These results were not anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who intended that the tax should be put upon the shoulders of the consumer. That has not been the case, and I believe the tax ought to be reduced to somewhere about its old level. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that he has received, owing to this taxation, about £1,700,000 extra into the Treasury. Although that is true, it must be recognised that if the tax had remained where it was, at the same level, owing to the increase of population and owing to the prosperous year last year, there is no doubt there would have been under ordinary circumstances a great increase in consumption,
1538
and, therefore, if the tax were reduced to the old level the amount lost to the revenue would not be £1,500,000, but probably not much more than £1,000,000.
The second part of the Clause deals with Excise. I propose that the Excise Duties should be reduced by a-half on tobacco grown in Great Britain and Ireland. That will not cause the revenue of the country to suffer to any great extent, at any rate at present. The amount of duty collected on tobacco was given in answer to a question put by the hon. Member (Mr. William Redmond) the other day at something like £20,000 odd. The loss of half that duty to the revenue would not be much in a Budget running into something like £200,000,000, and it would stimulate a young and nascent industry which is giving great employment, and which would give a great deal more employment in a country which very much wants employment. I do not want to argue this from the point of view of Protection, as, of course, I recognise the Government would not look at it from that point of view. I am quite sure that Nationalist Members will support the view I put for-ford that a young industry like this should be encouraged by every means in our power. It does not offend against the tenets of Free Trade in the very least, because we have it on very high authority that it is quite permissible to protect young industries until they are fully established, and I maintain that from a much more important point of view it does not offend against the tenets of common-sense. It could easily be altered and put back, or, at any rate, more restricted taxation could be put upon it, if it was found to be losing revenue and if we could not raise the revenue in any other way. From my point of view, at any rate, I think the case has been made clear for a reduction of the Tobacco Duties and for a reduction of Excise upon British and Irish grown tobacco.
Mr. FELL: I beg to second the Motion. I had an opportunity, on the Second Reading of this Bill, of making a few remarks on the effect of the Tobacco Duties upon the retail trade. I fully endorse all that has been said by the hon. Member for Central Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee) as regards the hardship inflicted on the working classes by the increase that has taken place in the duties on their tobacco, which is to them one of the necessaries of life. It is a fact that, although there has been

1539
only a small reduction in the consumption of tobacco, the population has grown, and the wealth of the country has grown since the duties have been put up, and I would say that if the consumption had only stood still that would really show a reduction in the number of smokers as compared with two years ago. Therefore, if we are standing still in this matter we are really going back, because in a country where the population is increasing the consumption of one of the primary articles used by the people remains about the same. This shows that the Tobacco Duties have reached a stage at which they have become prohibitive to many people. I trust that at the earliest opportunity we shall have these Tobacco Duties reduced to the old rate at which they were standing formerly. With regard to retail shops, another point is that the capital which the sellers have to put into their businesses in order to carry the same stock is considerably larger than it was before the duties were raised. Many retailers have found it exceedingly difficult to get additional capital. They have either to decrease their stock or put further capital into the business. When they do that, they have a smaller sale of tobacco while employing larger capital. This operates in a two-fold way. They have less profit and larger capital on which to pay interest. It is not surprising, under those conditions, that the number of licences has decreased, and that a number of retailers have, I am sorry to say, been forced into the Bankruptcy Court.
I should like to make a few remarks in regard to Irish tobacco, in which I have taken great interest since I have been in this House. I have asked questions as to whether the growing of Irish tobacco could not be further facilitated. The Government granted a bonus of £6,000 a year to the growers of Irish tobacco. That bonus continues until 1913. It is, I believe, distributed among the growers of tobacco at something like £25 per acre which they cultivate. It is an expensive cultivation. Tobacco has to be grown on very rich soil, and the plants have to be greatly cared for. Where they do that they get a very good product in Ireland, as has been proved by the results last year. This is an increasing industry in Ireland; it reached over 80,000 lbs. last year. Although we have included in the new Clause the proposal that the Excise on English-grown tobacco should be equally reduced, I do not think it is suggested yet that the
1540
tobacco grown in England is for the purpose of smoking. It is for the purpose of making fumigation articles and things of that kind where nicotine is a useful element. In Ireland the case is different. The tobacco grown there is at the present time being smoked. They have skilled men over from America to teach them the best methods of growing it and treating it, and they are producing tobacco which, I believe, compares favourably with some of the other brands which are being sold in England. When you are re-introducing a thing like this against an established industry of such immense wealth as the tobacco industry, both as regards growers and manufacturers, there are difficulties. It is still harder for any industry to be revived after having been crushed out. That is the reason why I suggest that the very greatest assistance should be given to the industry, and that a helping hand should be held out. If it were a new industry people would not say, "It has been tried before, and died out." Tobacco-growing was a considerable industry in Ireland at one time, and it was crushed.
I remember the hon. Member for Galway giving a most pathetic account of how English soldiers, Dragoons I think, went out and grubbed up the tobacco plants which were growing in Ireland. I hope we shall do something not to grub up the plants, but to replant those devastated fields and re-introduce this industry. But you cannot introduce the industry and do the necessary advertising in order to bring the article into the market without capital. You cannot do that on the small bounty of £6,000 a year. I could understand that a great deal more than that would have to be spent on advertising if you are to acquire a reasonable market for Irish tobacco in England. Therefore, they must have greater assistance than is being given to them at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when President of the Board of Trade said that the amount of assistance which they got then, namely, £6,000 a year, was considerably greater than the rebate or reduction asked by the Irish Members. He said they would only get £1,300 benefit by a reduction in the duty, whereas they were getting £6,000 for the bounty. We are asking a rebate of half the amount, and I believe at the present time Irish-grown tobacco is paying about £12,000 or £13,000 to the Government in Excise, so that if it was reduced by half it would exactly leave the amount given as bounty. But it would be given to them in a very much better way. It

1541
would be on the actual product. Last year the produce was 80,000 lbs., and the growers of that would have exactly the same assistance per pound. I believe if this were done, there would be a very rapid increase in the growing of tobacco in Ireland. If this clause had been in operation last year the loss to the revenue on the tobacco grown in Ireland would only have been £6,000. Supposing that ten times as much tobacco were grown and a great industry established, the loss would only amount to £60,000. What is that to the Exchequer, which is so lavish with money at the present time? I do not think it would be a permanent charge. It would only be required to establish the industry. If the Government would only pay that price out of its abounding revenue at the present time it would not be too much to pay for such an object. This country would not feel it, but the Irish people would, and English growers of tobacco for fumigation purposes would be helped. I strongly urge that a case has been shown for passing this Clause. If it is not economic, it is at any rate patriotic for us to try to introduce again an industry which we destroyed in Ireland some time ago.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I desire to address a few words to the House on this subject, because it is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest for many years. In the first place, I thank the hon. Gentleman (Major Archer-Shee) for having given us the opportunity of considering this matter in relation to Ireland. With regard to the scope of the new Clause moved by the hon. Member, I do not desire to say much, but generally speaking I think I am in agreement with everything he has said. It is only the portion of the new Clause with reference to Ireland that I desire particularly to deal. I would like very much, if I could, to impress on Members of the House, and especially on new Members who have not heard any discussion on this subject before, that this is a matter of very great and real importance to the Irish people, and I believe it may become also one of great importance to the English people. We all know from the figures presented year by year prove what an enormous trade the tobacco trade is in this country. I think everyone will agree that if it could be possible to produce not only in Ireland, but in Great Britain as well, a portion of the tobacco consumed in such large quantities, it would be an immense industry which would be the means of giving very great employ-
1542
ment to tens of thousands of people, many of whom have no employment at the present time. I know of no subject on which there is a greater amount of ignorance prevailing than on the subject of tobacco-growing. The average person you speak to on the matter will, if he does not laugh at the whole affair, say that it is impossible for tobacco to be grown under the gloomy skies of this country. Any expert can tell you that that is not the case at all. Tobacco can be grown here in England very well, and particularly it can be grown in Ireland. For a long time past it has been proved that Ireland is a country well suited for the growing of tobacco. I do not mean to detain the House by going into the history of this question, but I may say that at the beginning of last century the tobacco industry in Ireland was really a very considerable one, and it was growing rapidly. A large amount of land in Ireland, and particularly in the south was under tobacco cultivation, large employment was given, and there was every prospect of its becoming a still larger industry. It is interesting to recall how first of all tobacco planting took place in Ireland. A number of people from county Wexford emigrated to the United States in the ordinary way. Numbers of them went to Virginia, got into the tobacco business, and learned the business of tobacco planting. Many of them returned to Ireland, having done well, and they commenced growing tobacco there. They found they could do so successfully. That was really the commencement of the tobacco industry at the commencement of last century in Ireland.
It seems an astonishing thing that such a comparatively short time ago as 1831 this House should deliberately pass an Act of Parliament for the purpose of suppressing a growing industry, the tobacco industry, in Ireland; and yet that is the fact. A report is in the Library which any hon. Member can consult of a Parliamentary Committee which sat to inquire into this subject in the year 1830, and all the evidence given before that Committee can be read. I defy anyone reading the proceedings and Report of that Committee to come to any other conclusion than that the tobacco industry was suppressed in Ireland simply and solely in the interest of certain tobacco traders in Great Britain. It was proved that the industry gave employment in Ireland, that tobacco could be grown there, that the industry was spreading rapidly, and the only conclusion that can be come to was that the evidence

1543
given by tobacco traders here was such that it influenced the Committee to report in favour of suppressing the trade. It was said that tobacco-raising in Ireland was interfering with trade here; it was alleged that there was some smuggling, and that the tobacco trade in this country was inconvenienced by the trade in Ireland. At any rate, in the following year, in spite of the protest of every Irish Member present—I suppose that, strictly speaking, there were none who could be called Nationalists in the present sense of the word—but in face of the opposition of every single Irish Member, many of them Conservative Lords, this Bill was passed in 1831, and tobacco-growing was made a crime in Ireland, and people were subjected themselves to very severe penalties if they grew it. Surely at this time of day everybody will agree it was a quite unjustifiable proceeding. In the part of Ireland where I was raised, the county of Wexford, I remember as a small boy watching with surprise farmers in their backyards with little patches here and there growing tobacco plants very successfully. The practice, though given up on the farms, had still continued in that small way through all these years, and it was still being demonstrated that tobacco could be grown in Ireland, and that people were growing it in small quantities.
It is more than twelve years ago since I introduced a Bill in this House for the purpose of repealing the Act of 1831 and allowing tobacco to be grown legally. Every Member in this House knows what an extremely difficult thing it is for a private Member to pass practically without the help of the Government an Act of his own. For ten years this Bill was introduced without success, but in 1907 I succeeded in doing something which I really do think was unique—at any rate, I am rather proud of it: I succeeded in getting every single one of the 103 Irish Members, the extreme representatives of the Orange constituencies, as well as the Members on these benches, representing the Nationalist party, to sign a memorial to the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in favour of the passage of this Bill legalising tobacco-growing in Ireland. I presented it to him, and asked him what he would do, and when he saw that every single Irish Member's name was attached to this document he said there was nothing else to be done but to pass the Act, because when Ireland asks unanimously for anything she is bound to get it. The Act
1544
was passed and became law. Another Act was passed afterwards legalising tobacco-growing in Scotland, and I believe it is legal to be grown in England as well. Though a special Act was not passed, provision was made for growing tobacco in England as well as in Scotland and Ireland. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland about ten years ago commenced experiments of tobacco-growing in Ireland. They spent a considerable sum of money, and got several plots of land, put up curing barns, got an expert authority from Virginia to instruct the people and generally superintend the work.
Year after year this work of experiment was so successful that the Government of the day were attracted by it, and I remember that the hon. Gentleman who is sitting below me now, the Member for the city of York (Mr. Butcher), who is interested in Ireland although he is a very strong Conservative, went with me to the late Lord Ritchie and told him what had been done, and the success that had been achieved. He was interested in the matter, and agreed, for experimental purposes, that a rebate of 1s. a pound should be given on tobacco grown in Ireland. That was before the legalising Act of 1907 was passed. We are very grateful, also, for that recognition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer continued that rebate. Then the Tobacco Act was passed. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer came into power, he said he did not think this matter of rebate was a satisfactory way of dealing with the question. He said that Irish tobacco should pay the full duty, but that he recognised that what had been done by the Conservative administration ought to be continued by him, and said that instead of the rebate they would arrange for an annual grant for five years, I think, of £6,000. Under that arrangement the Irish grown tobacco has paid the full duty ever since; but as a set off the £6,000 under the direction of the Department of Agriculture is distributed for the benefit of the growers. Now the hon. Member for Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee). in his new Clause, proposes, in lieu of anything in the shape of a grant or bonus, to encourage Irish tobacco growing, that the duty on Irish and British-grown tobacco shall be only half what it is upon imported tobacco. I can say with regard to that that I myself, on more than one occasion in this House, proposed to have a reduction

1545
of the duty on Irish grown tobacco, Some hon. Gentlemen here agreed with me and voted with me, but my experience in the matter has led me to believe that it is not practicable under present circumstances—I wish it were—to expect that you will ever arrive at a satisfactory encouragement of this industry in Ireland on the lines of getting a reduction of duty. I very much wish that it could be done, but I have come to the conclusion that it is impracticable. I do not think that this Government will do it, and I cannot help reflecting that when the late Government were in power they made no such proposals. We had to pay the full duty. They gave us a shilling of it back again, no doubt by way of rebate, but that was really very much like the arrangement that exists under the present Government who are giving us a bonus, but still making us pay the full duty. Therefore, though I entirely sympathise with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Fins-bury, I am afraid that I must describe it as impracticable, not only from the point of view of the present Government, because we know they will not do it, but of his own Government when in power.
I am asked by the hon. Gentleman below me who is greatly interested in this matter what my proposal is. My proposal is, and I think most of the Irish Members will agree with me, that if the Secretary to the Treasury gets up and tells us, as in all probability he will, that the Government, because of their Free Trade sympathies, and for other reasons, are not prepared to accept this Clause, he should say that the good work of encouraging this industry which was commenced by Lord Ritchie, and carried on by the hon. Member for East Worcestershire, and also by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, shall be continued, and that this Irish industry, which has been increasing every year since it was started, shall not be allowed to lapse for want of proper encouragement. We have been getting £6,000 a year. In two years that arrangement will come to an end, and I want the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us what we may expect by way of new arrangement at the end of these two years? I think the matter is pressing for this reason; the industry under this encouragement has got on so well that it is now in a position to develop very rapidly and very largely. The principal tobacco growers are already, I believe, to go into the thing on a large commercial scale. A company on business lines will probably
1546
be started, the sale of the tobacco generally would be greatly increased, and an increased amount of employment would be given. But we cannot expect that to take place if at the end of two years the present arrangement will come to an end, and the growers do not know what to expect then. I think it a reasonable thing to ask the Government to give some undertaking that at the end of two years this wonderful experiment shall not be allowed to lapse for want of proper encouragement.
The Secretary to the Treasury will probably tell us that for the future the whole thing is to be under the control of the Development Commission. According to the constitution of the Development Commission it was specially set out that among other objects on which it might spend money was the cultivation of tobacco, and I have been told that we are to look to the Development Commission. We are very glad to look to them. We believe they will help us; but I believe we are entitled to get from the Secretary to the Treasury, as I believe we would get it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was here, because he assured me that personally he was deeply interested in this industry—some assurance that the Government will make such representations to the Development Commissioners as will ensure that they will take proper steps, and that nothing will be done again to choke off this industry. And now a few words as to how the matter stands at the present time. I was speaking to one of the principal growers in Ireland—Colonel Everard, from the county of Meath—in the House. He has a small company of his own. I asked him how was his industry going on, and said, "You have not started a company?" "No," he said, "I have not. I am doing all the growing and manufacturing of my own tobacco. I have a small factory in Dublin, with fifty hands employed." I asked him, "How are you doing?" He put his hand in his pocket by way of reply, and took out the week's returns sent from Dublin while he was in London. From this week's return it was apparent that the average business done by him in Irish-grown and manufactured tobacco, sold and raised by him on his own twenty-four acres alone, amounted to a sale of between £400 and £500 worth a week. He assured me that he was not only selling it in Ireland, but that there was a demand for it from abroad, that he was selling it to other countries, and that the demand was so

1547
increasing that he was not in present circumstances able to cope with it; that the thing was worth developing, and that all he needed was some assurance that for the future the encouragement should be given. There are only 120 acres on which tobacco is grown in Ireland at present, yet on that small amount of land hundreds of people are being employed. I have succeeded in getting one or two Englishmen to be kind enough to look into the matter themselves. I had the opportunity of taking over an English Member of Parliament among others who were especially interested in labour and the employment of the people. It is a perfect revelation to go to one of those tobacco farms and to see the industry which has been created. In one part alone, with a little over twenty acres, there are 130 men, women, and children, boys, and girls, who are busily employed. Colonel Everard, Lieutenant of the County of Meath, is engaged in tobacco cultivation, and in the neighbourhood emigration has been stopped because of the employment given to the whole of the people by the tobacco industry. The employment which Colonel Everard affords in tobacco-growing comes at the most useful period of the year. When all the crops have been sown, and while there is a general slackness in the demand for labour until the harvest time comes at the end of August and in September, this industry still continues to afford employment, and is busy. There is the planting, which takes place in May, and from May on to August all these people are engaged in the fields. I assure hon. Members here, whatever their opinions may be about general Irish political questions, that this is a matter of the vastest interest to all parties in Ireland, and in advocating this industry I am associated with Gentlemen of all shades of politics. Some of the growers and farmers are strict supporters of the Nationalist party, while other growers who are giving employment belong to the extreme following of the Conservative party; so that those interested in the growing of tobacco represent all shades of politics, and Members on both sides of this House may take it from me that it does not involve any breach of political principle or party principle at all.
It is a serious matter, it is one of the greatest interest, and it is one which involves what we in Ireland want almost as much as anything else, namely, the
1548
opportunity of giving the people a living, and enabling them to support their families. The Chief Secretary (Mr. Birrell) who visited one of these farms a few months ago can bear out what I say. It is perfectly wonderful the impetus which is given to agriculture by this industry. There is this further to be said—the tobacco produced is perfectly good. When I go into the smoking room I see Irish tobacco on sale in the form of cigarettes and cigars, and pipe tobacco is successfully grown. Of course, it takes a long time to bring an industry like this to such a pitch of perfection that it can compete with the old established tobacco industries of Cuba and America. Still, the article is good and the people are satisfied with it, and tobacco smoking, after all is a matter of taste. You get a certain kind of tobacco or a certain brand of cigar which may satisfy certain people, but which does not those who have become accustomed to a particular kind of tobacco. It is a matter of taste. Those who have given this tobacco in Ireland an opportunity of being tested are satisfied with the results. Some of the growers are extremely wealthy men, and without saying anything disparaging of them, they are not the class of men likely to sacrifice themselves too much for the sake of an industry, nor would they smoke Irish tobacco, and encourage their friends to do so, if it were not a good article. I can assure you it is good; I can assure you the demand for it is increasing, and there is no reason in the world with fair encouragement why this industry should not be developed to an enormous extent. We are not asking the Treasury to make any great sacrifice. Why? According to the figures given me last year the duty paid on Irish-grown tobacco taken out of bond was £11,000. That sum does not represent the total amount which will be paid, because it is only the sum which has been paid upon the tobacco taken out of bond.
This sum of £11,000 on tobacco, taken out of bond has gone into the pockets of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid that the Treasury chest of this country is going to lose; on the contrary, the more tobacco is grown the more will go in the shape of duty into the Treasury. We are not asking the right hon. Gentleman to make any sacrifice. I may be told after all that it is not a practicable thing, that it is not a feasible thing, that it is entirely out of date, to suggest that an industry should

1549
be bolstered up; that if it cannot exist on its own merits it is absurd to say that the State is to pay for maintaining an industry that cannot stand by itself. In some matters I entirely agree with Protection, though, broadly speaking of course, I think the vast majority of people are in entire sympathy with those who believe in Free Trade as regards food and the necessities of the masses of the people. But I desire to say that while I quite agree that no industry can be expected to receive support from the Government if it cannot exist on its own merits, yet I do not think that the industry of Irish tobacco-growing can by any means be described in that way. Nobody interested in that industry would come to the Government for help if they did not see clearly before them the day when it will stand alone, and compete successfully with similar industries across the seas. We do not ask for perpetual protection in this matter; all we ask is, and it is a fair and reasonable thing, that this industry should receive encouragement. It was put down wantonly and deliberately by the Act of this House; it was crushed out by the Government, and we are anxious now to resuscitate it in order to give our people employment. Is it unfair or inconsistent with the principle of Free Trade that we should come to the Government and say that this industry, having been suppressed in Ireland, we claim as a matter of right that we should be assisted to get it going again. I am assured by the tobacco growers that their experience of last year alone and of the year before, but especially of last year, is such as to encourage them to believe, if they are allowed to go on and get a continuance of this help for a sufficient period, that they will be well able to compete with the industry in America and elsewhere.
We do not ask for perpetual protection, but we ask that there shall be encouragement for a sufficient time to enable this industry to be re-started in Ireland. That is the request which I make with the greatest respect and confidence, not only to Members of the Government, but to all Members of the House. I believe I shall not make the appeal in vain, because I remember that the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), who was for long a Member for Lincolnshire, took favourable part in a Debate on the subject not very long ago. Do not for goodness sake sacrifice this promising and real attempt to any squabble about Free Trade. I do not care whether hon.
1550
Members on this side of the House encourage Tariff Reform, or whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are inclined to look with hesitation on this question, because it might involve some departure from the spirit of Free Trade. I do not want either Free Trade, Protection, or the question of Tariff Reform to be mixed up with this Irish tobacco industry at all. I appeal to Members on all sides with confidence, because this is a matter of fairness. The industry was put down by the British Government most unfairly, and an opportunity has now arrived for reviving it; and I appeal with confidence to the House to show their sympathy in this matter. I am afraid that I cannot see my way to supporting the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, although I sympathise with him, because what I want, after all, is to try and get something done; but under his proposal nothing can be done, and I appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury, for the sake of the development of the industry, to continue to give it encouragement.
Mr. BUTCHER: As one who has for many years been deeply interested in the restarting of this tobacco industry in Ireland, I desire to associate myself with every word that has been said by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond), first of all, as to the importance to Ireland of encouraging tobacco growing; and, secondly, as to the absolute necessity there is that the Government should give some definite assurances to enable that industry to go forward. Certain things have been proved. First, that tobacco can be grown in Ireland, and quite smokeable tobacco; and, secondly, it is proved that it can be done with commercial success, with reasonable encouragement from the Government of the day, in order to resuscitate the industry. Thirdly, it is an undoubted fact that the employment given by the growing and curing and the preparation of the tobacco for the market, is exceedingly large. Of my own knowledge, I can corroborate what the hon. Member has said, that on the estate of Colonel Everard, in Meath, emigration has absolutely stopped owing to the large amount of employment afforded by this industry. The hon. Member for Clare has really understated the case rather than overstated the case
Mr. W. REDMOND: I always do.
Mr. BUTCHER: The hon. Gentleman is in a very uncontroversial mood; I will not dispute that. As a matter of fact, the tobacco industry in Ireland has not only

1551
been once suppressed by Parliament, but it has been twice suppressed. In the time of Cromwell there was a large tobacco industry, but in the early years of the reign of Charles II. it was absolutely suppressed, and it was made criminal to grow tobacco, the Preamble of the Act which was passed setting forth that it was necessary to suppress the tobacco growing in Ireland because it was injuring "our plantations in Virginia." The industry was crushed out in the reign of Charles II. In the early part of the nineteenth century the ban was removed for a short time, and the industry continued until 1821, when, for the second time in its history, it was crushed out. If ever there was a strong case for encouraging and reviving an industry, which would be flourishing at this moment but for the misdeeds of this House, it is in the present instance. I have said enough to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members the importance of continuing the encouragement which is at present afforded by the Government, and that this encouragement should not come to a close at the end of two years. How can you expect men to invest large sums of money in factories and in organising the means of distribution if they have no certainty that the help which the industry receives will be continued? I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on those benches feel the importance of that. The most remarkable fact of all is that you here have a matter on which Irishmen of every shade of opinion are unanimous. It is not often that occurs. But it has occurred in this case, and therefore you have the unanimous demand in Ireland to help them in an industry which will do great good to the Irish people, and to carry out a policy which, if properly initiated and pursued, far from doing harm to the British Government and the British taxpayer, would do great good, because it would set up a more prosperous, a more contented, and a more successful Ireland than we have seen up to the present time.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. BAIRD: I should like to refer to one branch of this subject which I had hoped to deal with in an Amendment which I placed on the Paper. Owing, however, to the arbitrary manner in which this question is being treated by the Government, that Amendment is quite certain not to be reached. I trust I shall be in order in dealing with the same question on the
1552
Motion now before the House, and that is the question of cigar manufacture. When the original Finance Bill of 1909 was being brought in, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) put the case for the cigar manufacturers in very admirable language. Dealing with the subject, he said:—
"The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that consequent upon the extra taxation on tobacco there had been a very considerable burden placed upon the trade, and he spoke in particular of a reduction of employment in the cigar trade. Anyone familiar with the conditions of the manufacture of British cigars in this country is well aware that that particular industry suffers from two disabilities. One is that public taste has turned from cigars to cigarettes, and the other is that there is unquestionably a far greater percentage of moisture in the tobacco used in the manufacture of cigars than in any other tobacco introduced into this country. They also labour under this further disadvantage: That whereas most forms of tobacco are placed upon the market in a moister condition than it is introduced into this country, the cigar makers import their tobacco in a more moist condition than they sell it to the public. They are handicapped by these two great difficulties, neither of which are of their own making, and they are unquestionably placed at a greater disadvantage in respect of this tax than those other people who are employed in the manufacture of tobacco."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1909, col. 1202.]
That was the admission of the right hon. Gentleman two years ago, and since then to my knowledge deputations have waited upon him and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to having those disadvantages removed. So far nothing has been done. There is one cigar factory in my constituency, and there are more in other parts, and the question is one which affects labour, and affects it very seriously. Only two days ago I was told by the manager of a cigar factory that he had to put his hands on half time. I think, therefore, that the subject is one on which I may legitimately appeal before this Bill is passed into law. The details cannot be better put than they were by the right hon. Gentleman in the language which I have quoted. Under the present system by which import duties are levied on tobacco cigar manufacturers have to pay duty not only on tobacco, but on water. Naturally, the higher the duty the more water they have to pay for, and the more expensive consequently the raw material becomes. That has its effect in diminishing employment, and in putting up the cost of what is a luxury for a large section of the population, who have no other luxury of any other kind. I am bound to say, if you are going to tax luxuries, and all of us admit that to be a good thing, I think the luxuries you ought to tax least are those luxuries which form the only luxuries of a large section of the population. I do think something ought

1553
to be done to relieve the taxation on those cigars which are the cheapest kind of cigars, not those that hon. Members smoke, but smoked by men who only buy cigars on Saturday night or Sunday. It is from that point of view I venture to make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. The case will not be met even if he adopts this Motion to anything like the same degree as if he could see his way to adopt the Amendment, which I shall not have the opportunity of moving, but something would be done if a reduction were effected in the duty, because at any rate the cigar manufacturer would have to pay less on water than at present.
I wish it had been possible to enlist the support of hon. Members below the Gangway. I think it is legitimate to criticise the remark that the hon. Member for East Glare (Mr. W. Redmond) made when he expressed his scepticism as to his friends having any better luck if we were in power. It is quite obvious that any suggestion based on practice and common sense, which was so well developed with so much eloquence by the hon. Member, could not possibly have a chance of being adopted if it falls foul of more or less accepted fiscal theories. Consequently, so long as hon. Gentlemen opposite are in power, there is that difficulty. I should like the hon. Member to remember that we propose not to be content with a mere, miserable All-British week, but that we want to have an All-British year. We gladly include Ireland, and we hope that they will do the same, and that people will be induced, and that it will be made more profitable to them to smoke Irish rather than foreign tobacco. I think the hon. Gentleman was entirely too despondent, because whether hon. Members like it or not his friends and those who sit here above the Gangway would have forced hon. Members to have adopted the suggestion for benefitting tobacco growing in Ireland. I think it is regrettable that the hon. Member did not adopt that theory. I do firmly believe if we had acted in union, we could have achieved what will never be achieved by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and have done something which, on the showing of the hon. Member, would have increased the amount of profitable, useful, legitimate, and sensible employment which would have been given to a large number of people in Ireland. It is because the case which I am endeavouring to present would produce the same effect, though to a lesser extent in the Division I represent that I venture most respectfully but most
1554
insistently to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to adopt the suggestions contained in the present Amendment.
Mr. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) a moment ago made an appeal to me personally not to abandon the support of the cause of tobacco growing in Ireland, which I have announced on previous occasions. I rise and am anxious to assure him without any delay that I have not in any way whatever departed from the views which I formerly maintained on this question. On the contrary, they are only confirmed by the time which has elapsed since then, and they are strengthened and reinforced by the speech of the hon. Member. What is the case that the hon. Member has submitted to us? He tells us, speaking as an Irish Member, and with every opportunity of knowing the facts, that this is a question of the vastest interest to all classes in Ireland. He pointed out to us that it means not only the means of livelihood, but the means of greatly increased employment in Ireland, if the suggestions contained in the Clause which we are now discussing are accepted by His Majesty's Government. More than that, it will add, he tells us, greatly to the increase of the productive wealth of that country. I wish to remind the House, or those at least of the House who may not have heard what I said on a previous occasion on this subject, that in the course of the duties of the Tariff Commission, of which I was a member, we had at one time to sit for ten days or a fortnight in Ireland. During that period we took an immense deal of evidence of all kinds and descriptions, and, among other things upon the growing of tobacco in that country. It is all recorded in the report of that Commission. It has been quoted upon previous occasions, and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury in case he should have forgotten it that the evidence was overwhelming that Ireland, with proper opportunities, could unquestionably cultivate tobacco with great success with great benefit and advantage. We had witness after witness who gave us reliable information upon this point.
The hon. Gentleman comes forward and says you have extinguished a great Irish industry in what you have done with regard to tobacco, and that is not by any means the only industry that in other days has been extinguished by the action of English Governments, and he calls upon

1555
you for the means of restoring it, and he points to this Amendment and he says: "Here if you will only accept the particular Amendment, which I am not moving, but which stands in the name of an hon. Friend, then you will be conferring on Ireland a great benefit and a great advantage, which would conduce largely to the interests of that country." I think I might enlarge upon the injustice and impropriety of deliberately interfering and prejudicing what might be a most profitable means of industry and employment in that country. How many hours, I should like to know, how many days, how many months have been spent in this House by-Liberal Governments, perhaps more than any other, in the endeavour to restore something like its former prosperity to Ireland by all sorts of wild and extravagant proposals, as I thought then at the time myself to be, and none of which up to the present have met with the success which was anticipated from them. I am speaking now of that succession of Irish Land Bills introduced into this House and carried by Liberal Governments. So far from those having proved to be the success they were always expected to be, both parties have united in trying to alter the whole position created by those measures, and to create instead a peasant proprietary in Ireland. The hon. Member for Clare comes forward and tells you, with all his knowledge of the country, that here you have a perfectly simple proposal, not likely to injure anyone in the world, by which you really may do something for Ireland if you will only consent to abandon what, while I do not wish to speak disrespectfully, I should say was some of the ancient twaddle about Free Trade, which has for so many years done service as the highest wisdom of political economy. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able on this occasion to hold out some hope of meeting the views and wishes of the hon. Member for Clare, and the views of other Members in this House, as well as of the hon. Member for Clare. Whether he does or whether he docs not, I can only say that I shall, with the greatest possible pleasure, support the Clause before the House.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I shall not attempt to follow the right hon. Gentleman into all the fascinating paths which he has opened up to our view by his brief reference to the proceedings of the Tariff
1556
Commission. I would only say that I do not attach to the findings and evidence of that Commission all the importance which he perhaps thinks it necessary to give them.
Mr. CHAPLIN: Do you not attach any importance to the evidence?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Some of it. I propose to confine myself to the more immediate proposals to which the major part of the new Clause refers. The first two subsections are the really important ones from the present point of view. I will come to the question of Ireland later. The hon. Member proposes to reduce by one-half the existing duties on tobacco, which stand now at 3s. 8d. per lb. with ten per cent. of moisture, rising to 4s. 1d. where there is less than ten per cent. of moisture.
Major ARCHER-SHEE: Only the Excise Duties by one-half.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; and to reduce the Customs Duties to the amount at which they stood previous to the Finance Act—that is from 3s. 8d. or 4s. 1d., as the case may be, to 3s. and 3s. 4d. respectively. That would cost the Revenue a very large amount of money, and I do not suppose that anyone who really considered the proposal would be of opinion that His Majesty's Government could upset the whole of the finance, not of this year, but in the future, by the deduction of so large an amount from the revenue of the country, without any suggestion as to how the deficiency should be made good. The result of the second Sub-section would be to reduce the Excise Duties of 2s. 10d., 3s. 2d., and 3s. 10d. per lb. by one-half. The financial effect of that would be comparatively small, because the amount of tobacco grown in the United Kingdom at present is very small, being practically confined to Ireland.
Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the loss to the Revenue if the second Sub-section were conceded?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: About £10,000 a year. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) took a rather pessimistic view of the future of tobacco consumption in this country. He led the House to believe that there had been an alarming drop in the consumption of tobacco, that the trade had been very adversely hit by the taxation laid upon it, that ruin was hanging over the tobacco manufacturers, and that the number of retailers' licences had gone down to a most alarming extent.
Mr. FELL: I did not refer to the manufacturers; I spoke of the retailers.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: This is what always happens when extra taxation is placed upon tobacco. After the imposition of increased taxation, there is always a drop, and sometimes a sharp drop, for the first year or two, but there is always afterwards a corresponding increase in the consumption. What has happened in this case has happened before. Go back to the year 1900, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, as he then was, put an extra 4d. on tobacco. The consumption, which had been 80,000,000 lbs., dropped to 78,000,000 lbs. in the following year, but the year after that it went back to rather over 80,000,000 lbs. There was an imposition of increased taxation, an immediate drop in consumption, and a subsequent rise. What took place in 1900 has taken place in the last year. I cannot give the figures for the financial year, but I can give them for the last calendar year. In 1908 there was a consumption of 90,000,000 lbs.; then came the extra duty, and the consumption dropped to 87,500,000 lbs., but in 1910 it has gone up again to nearly 90,000,000 lbs. There is practically no difference between the consumption before the extra duty was imposed and the consumption now when the tax has been in operation for a full year. The normal consumption has returned, and there has taken place the expansion which always accompanies the increase of population. I have not the slightest doubt that at the end of the next calendar year the consumption will have outstripped that of any previous year.
Mr. ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures of the expansion?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: 1908, 90,000,000 lbs.; 1909, 87,500,000 lbs.; 1910, just under 90,000,000 lbs.; so that there has been a complete recovery.
Mr. ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the net amount retained for home consumption is actually less in 1910 than it was in 1908, to the extent of 70,000 lbs.?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, it has almost recovered—within 50,000 lbs. on a consumption of 80,000,000 lbs. The percentage of decrease is very small. The hon. Member rather suggested that it was in consequence of the increased taxation that there had been a decrease in a number of manufacturers' licences. I do not think that one fact marches with the other.
1558
There has been a steady decrease in the number of manufacturers' licences taken out ever since 1902–3. In 1902–3 the number decreased by twenty, in 1903–4 by eighteen; 1904–5, twenty-three; 1905–6, twelve; 1906–7, fourteen; 1907–8, four; 1908–9, eight.
Mr. PETO: 1909–10?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not the figures.
Mr. PETO: Twenty-four.
Mr. HOBOUSE: I am willing to accept the hon. Member's figure; it is no larger than for the year 1904–5. There has been a continual steady drop, due not to taxation, but to the fact that the manufacture has got into the hands of much larger firms—a fact which has nothing to do with the particular taxation at all, and which is, I think, a regrettable factor in the trade. The causes which have led to this fact have been in operation for more than ten years past. The hon. Member for Yarmouth was, I think, unduly alarmed in respect to dealers' licences. There was a sharp drop last year, due to the decrease of consumption, but there has been an almost complete recovery this year. The year is not complete, so that I cannot give the figure for the whole year; but in the last quarter of the year there has been an increase of 5,000 in the number of dealers' licences as compared with the previous year. I shall be able to give shortly the figures for the complete financial year, which will, I hope, dissipate any alarm the hon. Member has felt.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. William Redmond). He has given a very interesting description of the rapid expansion of tobacco-growing in Ireland. I have not had the good fortune to witness that industry in its nascent state, but I hope to be able to do so shortly. The hon. Member is not the only Member of the House, and he does not belong to the only party who welcomes the return of industrial activity to Ireland in whatever form it may arise. There has been in that country an expansion of employment, both of capital and of labour, which is a hopeful sign of returning prosperity, with which I entirely sympathise, and which is largely due to the persistency with which the hon. Member has advocated her cause in this House. He asks me if I am prepared to give a guarantee that this £6,000 shall be extended beyond the two years. I do not

1559
think he can expect me to give a direct answer. I am sure he will not ask me to give him a direct negative. He has pointed out with great truth that the Development Commission was specifically required to deal with this particular industry. The application on behalf of the tobacco industry will stand on all fours with other applications for assistance in the consideration of the Commission.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is hardly correct to say that the application in the interest of the tobacco industry will stand on all fours with other applications. Other applications will be made in reference to matters on which no money has yet been expended, but I ask that the application with reference to Irish tobacco growing should be made a special one in view of what has been already given.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Unquestionably it is so. What I meant was this: that it will be in no way handicapped by the assistance given in the past. It will stand in that respect upon the same footing as any other application made for assistance from the Development Commissioners. I have not the slightest doubt that it will get from them both sympathetic and generous treatment when the case comes up for consideration. I certainly, by no action of the Treasury, will do anything to hinder their case receiving the fullest and most favourable treatment that the Commission may give to it. More than that I cannot say. In conclusion, I may say that the Government are quite unable to accept this Amendment, upsetting, as it would, the whole of the financial arrangements of next year in effect, and pledging, as it would, the House to accept that next year's Budget before the annual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been made or before any other proposals of the year have been produced to the House.
Mr. GILHOOLY: I am very sorry that the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clare to the Secretary for the Treasury has not met with the success that we anticipated. If the hon. Gentleman who has proposed this Clause, in his protest against the speech of the Financial Secretary, should go to a Division, I will go with him. We are all aware that Ireland is suitable for tobacco growing. We know in centuries gone by tobacco was largely cultivated. The soil is suitable,
1560
and the industry has given a lot of employment. Outside of that the reduction in the price of tobacco would be a great boon to the working men, whose only luxury it is. In fact, to the poor man this is just as much a luxury as champagne is to the rich man. I think the Government and the right hon. Gentleman who has addressed the House can have no idea of promoting the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland. I do hope that something will be done to foster an industry which has been destroyed by English legislation. I think the least the Government can do is to make some small reparation for having ruined Irish industry in the past. I certainly shall vote for the Amendment.
Mr. WHELER: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary—seeing that we have heard a good deal about tobacco growing in Ireland—one question arising out of the statement he made in his observations on the Clause which I moved, and in the matter of the restrictions of the Excise as regards tobacco growing in England, which comes under Section 2 of this Clause. The Financial Secretary said that tobacco may be cultivated and sold in England, with the ordinary Excise restrictions. On behalf of a large number of agriculturists who believe that tobacco can be grown in England, in many parts equally as well as in Ireland, we want very much to know what these ordinary Excise restrictions are. At Wye, the South-Eastern Agricultural College, last year, a number of experiments were carried out with a view to testing the ability of the soil in that district to grow tobacco. The restrictions which were imposed were very severe What I want to know particularly is whether these restrictions have been withdrawn? I would like, if I may, to read those restrictions. I am quoting from a report written by one of the professors at the college:—
"Before we could carry out our experiments we had to get special permission from the Treasury to grow the crop, and this permission was only given as a 'special indulgence.' and under strict supervision by the local excise officer."
Further on he says:—
"Every time we wanted to cut some plants, forty-eight hours' notice had to be given to the Excise Officer, so that he could come over and see it done, and any plants not considered lit for use had to be destroyed in his presence. A book was supplied in which had to be entered the area of land planted with each variety, the date of cutting, the green weight of the crop, etc., etc. When dried, the leaves had to be weighed under official supervision, and then kept under lock and key in a secure place until required for use; what quantity required has to be weighed out from the bulk, again in the presence of the excise officer."

1561
Restrictions of this sort make it very difficult for many of us who want to grow tobacco for our own and agricultural purposes to be able to do it. If we have to give this notice it means, especially in the case of a small man that the thing is very difficult to do. I should like to know exactly how we stand in this matter, because if these restrictions remain it makes it very difficult to encourage in England the cultivation of this crop?
Mr. PETO: I desire to express the great regret felt by many hon. Members on this side of the House, and doubtless shared by many hon. Members on the other side, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot accept, or even consider, this Clause which has been introduced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finsbury. My reason for intervening in the Debate at all is that I listened to the reasons given and the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think that the reasons for the phenomena which we have noticed, and which have been commented upon on this side of the House, are a good deal more deeply set than any reasons he gave. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the drop in the consumption of tobacco. He gave us figures for the year immediately following the imposition for the first time of this additional 8d. per pound. I do not believe that it was the drop in the consumption of tobacco which caused the extraordinary drop in the number of retail licences which exactly synchronised with the imposition of this duty. I should like to deal first of all with the question of the effect of the 8d. additional duty on the retailer and consumer. I have it on the very best authority of those intimately associated with the trade that, as a matter of fact, it was impossible for the retailers or manufacturers to pay the additional tax in the case of the very cheapest form of tobacco—pipe tobacco—the only kind of tobacco that the poorest people can afford to smoke at all. As it was impossible for the retailer to stand any part of that additional cost, the additional cost had to be placed upon the consumers, and was paid by the working man. We come to the next point.
Take the case of pipe tobacco, of a quite expensive variety, for which a comparatively rich man pays 10s. per lb. There is a considerable retailer's profit and manufacturer's profit, too, on that. The effect in this case was that the larger people in the trade were perfectly willing, in order
1562
to keep their trade in these expensive brands of tobacco, from which they were then getting a large profit, to pay that additional 8d. tax themselves. Hence the comparatively rich man did not make any additional contribution at all to the Exchequer. How does that work out in the case of the small retailer? He is not making a living out of half-ounce "screws" of the cheapest form of tobacco. He had few customers who bought the more expensive kind. By these customers he gained such profit as he made. He was unable to compete with the great combination firms of retailers who were perfectly able and willing—with the assistance of the special taxation imposed upon the trade—to take that opportunity to squeeze out an enormous number of the smaller people in the trade. So it has been in the case of the manufacturer. I notice the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not give the House—I am sure it was because he had not it in his mind at the moment—the number of manufacturers' licences, fewer which there were in the year immediately following the imposition of this duty. The year before the drop was four; the year after it was twenty-four. I think that is a sufficiently marked increase to call for some comment. I have seen the reports of several manufacturing firms who have met their shareholders in the current year. All of them say that this additional tax has been very severely felt. In one case, Messrs. R. and J. Hill, whose report I have here, the firm had £18,000 profit to distribute the year before the imposition of the tax. That fell to £11,000. That abnormal profit—which was abnormal to the extent of £4,000—was largely due to the firm's foresight in taking very large quantities of tobacco out of bond in anticipation of the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They attribute the large fall in the profits of the business entirely, or practically entirely, to this additional taxation, and they point out that although the Imperial Tobacco Company also complained of diminished profits, yet that they alone have been able altogether to stand up against this great imposition. The smaller the manufacturer the harder he has been hit, and this is the effect always of great changes, whether they are caused by a sudden change in the taste of the consumer or sudden changes in the taxation imposed on the article of manufacture. We have always been led to suppose, so long as we maintained the system of taxation of this Budget—this

1563
additional Tobacco Tax is not a small or unimportant part of it—that we shall be free in large measure from the action of combinations and trusts. I am sure the very last thing that those who framed this Budget intended was to put into it a tax which crushes out the small retailer for the benefit of the big man who has his hundred shops, and who can stand up against these sudden changes. Still more am I convinced that it was not the intention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to squeeze out the smaller manufacturers in the country.
I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman one case which comes a little nearer home to me. I happen to represent a town where there are few manufactures and industries. We have a tobacco company, one of the smaller tobacco factories in this country. When they had their shareholders' meeting in the course of the last month or so—I forget exactly what the share capital is, but it is considerable—they brought forward the magnificent profit for the whole year of £39 11s. 4d. The managing director of that company is one of the most honourable and strongest political opponents that I have in my constituency. He informed the shareholders that undoubtedly the principal cause of this miserable and disastrous year's trading was the 8d. additional tax imposed under the Budget. An indignant shareholder pointed out that not very long ago they were making a profit of thousands a year, and continued: "Surely you do not mean to tell me that this additional tax is the cause of that enormous drop in the profits of the Company?" The answer of the managing director was: "Although it is not the sole cause, it is by far the greatest cause of our enormous difference in the profits." What does it mean when that company gets down to making £39 in the year? It is not only the interests of the shareholders I am thinking about. With their business having got down to that level I know that unless something is done in the direction of the Clause which we are now debating, and there is a return to a more reasonable scale of taxation upon this luxury, then we are within measureable distance of some of these smaller companies having to close their doors altogether. Large as that drop was in the number of manufacturers' licences to twenty-four, I am convinced there will be a larger drop still in the future. More people will be thrown out of employment,
1564
and more small traders crushed out—with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—by monopolies and trusts which they have always told us we are absolutely safe from so long as we adhere to their fiscal policy. I regret extremely that this Clause is not accepted by the Government, because I think we all see perfectly clearly that, although the intentions of the Government were perfectly honourable as regards the small consumer and the working men, yet it is very easy when there is any lapse from the straight path of virtue, which in the matter of taxation I take to be the collection of the revenue necessary for the country by the simplest and most efficacious and most equitable means that can be devised—when they depart from that principle and impose special taxation from motives other than revenue upon industries such as tobacco or the licensed trade in order to please a small fragment of their supporters, what happens is that although they intend to hit only the luxuries of the rich, they hit also the luxuries of the poor, and they hit not monopolies such as they dislike, but the small businesses, both wholesale and retail, throughout the length and breadth of the country.
Mr. STEPHEN GWYNN: I wish to bring back the discussion for a moment to the question of Irish tobacco growing, and I should like to explain the reason why it is that I am prepared to vote against this Amendment. The reason is it does not appear to me to be a business proposition. What is proposed is to reduce the duties upon Irish-grown tobacco to such an extent as would mean a bounty or advantage to the Irish grower of from £75 to £100 per acre. An acre in Ireland will produce 1,000 lbs., the value of which, roughly, is about £100. The proposal in the new Clause does not seem to me to be reasonable, but I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury seems to understate the need that exists for continuing support to this industry. Setting out to grow tobacco means undertaking an industry which must be under the present fiscal system in this country carried out under very exceptional difficulties, because when you are growing tobacco leaves in a certain sense you are growing banknotes. Every leaf has a potential value enormously in excess of its sale value. The selling value of the leaf is a halfpenny, though its actual value is three or four pence. The result is that the crop has to be grown under strict control and

1565
restrictions specially onerous and which do not apply in the countries with which the Irish tobacco growers have to compete. And that is why we impress upon the Secretary to the Treasury the necessity of pressing that view upon the Commissioners of the Development Fund.
It is not merely a question of the growing; it is a question of the whole machinery of product. Until you get a sufficient area of tobacco grown in Ireland—and I do not think it should be less than 1,000 acres, instead of the 120 we now have—you can never have a re-handling establishment upon any proper business footing. We have plenty of manufacturers, and growing, after all, has not proved to be such a very difficult proposition. But the establishment of a re-handling factory involves a good deal of capital and special technique, which under present circumstances there is no possibility of getting. There is not enough tobacco grown to keep a factory at work. This is a case of giving a very considerable inducement, although I think that £75 or £100 an acre is not reasonable. But it is a case for giving an inducement capable of bringing Irish soil to cultivation for tobacco. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be content to say to the Development Commissioners that they are not to consider themselves debarred from subsidising this industry because the House of Commons has already done something for it. I hope he will say to them that they are bound to maintain a subsidy to this industry in order to carry through a work which the House of Commons has undertaken, a work of restitution and reparation and a work which it now devolves upon the Development Commissioners to help. I hope it will be made clear by the Government that here is a thing which has been begun, and which must be carried through unless the work is to fall to ruin.
I heard with amazement the hon. Gentleman who last spoke refer to the Tobacco Tax as a tax which had been imposed to hit the luxuries of the rich. We all knew from the very beginning it was a tax upon the necessities of the poor, and that it might to a certain extent impede or endanger industries. All I have to say is that it is one of the consequences which we thought would follow upon the necessity of paying for "Dreadnoughts" at the rate which the hon. Member and his party were so anxious to commit the country to. And I am bound to say, if taxes have to be imposed for such a purpose, this one seems to me among the most reasonable and
1566
fairest, although I deprecate the necessity for it.
Sir HOWELL DAVIES: As I represent a constituency in which the largest amount of tobacco is manufactured in the United Kingdom, I should like to say a word on this Clause. The Government may be attacked upon their increased taxation in the Budget of 1909, but I must say that whilst the manufacturing community dislike increases of taxation, very naturally, and no doubt these taxes do somewhat interfere with production, the rank and file of the working men, so far as I know, have said very little in the way of complaint as to their willingness to contribute to the revenues under that Act. No doubt we should all like these taxes to be smaller, but when the demands upon the Treasury are so great, and so long as hon. Gentlemen who support this Clause demand the enormous armaments which they are demanding, it seems impossible to expect any reduction in these Tobacco Duties. At the same time, whilst the increase of 8d. in the pound no doubt did somewhat militate against the prosperity of the tobacco industry, I think by this time the trade has practically accommodated itself to this necessity, and whilst the profits of some of the tobacco firms have decreased, I do not think that is the case with the tobacco industry in the constituency I represent. I noticed a very considerable increase last year, notwithstanding this 8d. in the pound, an increase in the profits of something approaching £300,000.
Mr. PETO: Not in the case of the small manufacturer.
Sir HOWELL DAVIES: I admit the great Imperial Tobacco Company is in a better position to meet this tax than the smaller companies. There is a section of the tobacco trade which makes cigars that has a grievance, and I ask the Government to see whether it cannot make some concession in the coming Budget with regard to that section of the tobacco trade. That seems to be a case where relief is badly needed. Some of the smaller cigar manufacturers in my own Constituency have appealed to me to ask the Government to do something in the matter. We should all be very gratified indeed if the finances of the country enabled the Government to make reduction in taxation, but so long I repeat as the demands upon the Treasury are so great, I do not see how a more just form of taxation could be devised than that which we are now considering.
Mr. SHEEHAN: I want to express my strong opinion in regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and to say that to me it was most unsatisfactory and disappointing. I cannot approve of the extraordinary attitude taken up by the Member for Galway (Mr. Gwynn), who seemed to be very concerned, indeed pathetically concerned, about the British Treasury. I am not here to make any excuse for the Treasury in this matter. I am much more concerned in seeing an industry struggling back to life in Ireland given a measure of encouragement, which was given to it in the past. We have no assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that this is to happen. The greatest length he would go is not to hamper fair consideration of the matter by the Development Commissioners. I do not know that we have much to thank him for in that regard. All he promises is that the matter will be laid before the Commissioners, and if the hon. Member for Galway, who unquestionably has given a great deal of assistance in the matter of tobacco-growing in the past, is satisfied with the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, I must say it is very easy to satisfy him. I do not think that tobacco-growers in Ireland have received very much comfort from the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. I entirely endorse the opinion of those who state it that if we joined forces we need not be begging from the Treasury, but we would have it in our own power to extract from them this concession.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The real opposition of the Government to this Clause is that it would give the Irish people an advantage in their own market. That, of course, would be a dreadful thing from the Government point of view. Their attitude now is calculated actually to prevent a great industry from springing up in our own country. The fact is that the Government are really imposing a tax on raw material, and they are at the same time preventing a great industry from springing up in our own country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always taking about bringing the people back to the land, and yet they purposely stop a great agricultural industry, which would admittedly find good employment for a very large number of men, women and children in the country districts. Those facts which nobody can deny, and the same applies to beet sugar. Here are two agricultural industries absolutely
1568
stopped because they are tied to the Free Trade system. It is a fact that your Free Trade system has depopulated our country districts and filled our slums with starving people. The Import Duty on tobacco—that is, on the raw tobacco which the working men use—is as much as 600 per cent. Under Section 2 of this proposal the tax would still be 300 per cent., and surely that is enough for the working people of this country to pay. Tobacco is not a luxury, although it is really a poor man's luxury. If you put such an enormous tax upon a poor man's luxury, I do not see why you should not put a 600 per cent. tax on motor cars and fancy dresses and the other luxuries of the rich. I would remind the hon. Gentleman opposite that Free Trade professors of the past like John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, who have expressed approval of the principle that it is the right thing to protect infant industries such as tobacco, and sugar beet. Professor Marshall himself, one of the professors of present fiscal statistics—who was chosen by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to write a treatise on the system, and do all he could to back it up—agrees with Stuart Mill and Adam Smith, and backs up the principle that it is right to protect infant industries until they grow strong enough to look after themselves. Professor Marshall says:—
"As the prudent husbandman puts seed corn into the earth, so a nation should he ready to sacrifice something of present income to develop industries which are immature and exposed to the competition of others which are strong."
That applies to tobacco-growing and to sugar beet. Professor Marshall goes on to say:—
"Protection to immature industries is a very great national good."
I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with all his Cobdenite principles, should pay some attention to this Free Trade professor whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are continually quoting and ramming down the throats of the people of this country. All the rest of the nations of the world think our present system is absolute idiocy. I hope, at any rate, the House will agree to Section 2 of the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend.
Mr. NEWTON: I wish to say a few words from the point of view of the poor consumers of tobacco, and also to touch upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Wiltshire. It has been said that the result of this taxation has been to cripple and hamper the smaller manufacturers

1569
and the smaller retailers. The net result of the two speeches to which we have listened on this subject is that it has been made quite clear that this taxation has had a very disastrous effect upon small manufacturers and producers. In the course of the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol there occurred a remark which we ought not to allow to pass without challenge. The argument he used was that so long as you have on the other side of the House a demand for armaments, so long will these duties have to be imposed. What is intended by that argument? Is it suggested that if we do not on this side of the House press upon the Government their duty to adequately defend this country, that the defence of this country will be neglected by the Government, and then the duties on tobacco can be remitted? That is a very dangerous argument, and I should like it to be made quite clear whether such protection as is now afforded to the country is actually due to the demands put upon the Government from this side of the House. With regard to the Irish question, the result of this Debate makes it quite clear that hon. Members from Ireland, for whom the hon. Member for Clare spoke so well, with our support, would be able to get a very substantial advantage for Ireland. It must be a matter for wonder to many people why, under these circumstances, hon. Members from Ireland do not embrace the opportunity which now presents itself of securing an undoubted bargain for Ireland. If this Motion is pressed to a Division, those who vote against it will not be acting in the best interests of their country.
Mr. CASSEL: There are a number of small retail tobacconists in my Constituency, and they say that the effect of these duties will make it almost impossible for them to carry on their business at a profit. The case of the Imperial Tobacco Company has been cited, and may I point out that that company has made the large profit of £300,000. We were not told what the chairman of that company said at the annual meeting with regard to that improvement. He said:—
"This improvement, as compared with last year, is not due to the British trade, but largely to the Company's interest in undertakings operating abroad."
As to the effect of this duty, let us take the view of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury himself. He said you must remember that 1908 was a bad year for trade, for employment, and comparatively little money was available. The year 1910 was
1570
a good year for trade, and, notwithstanding the increase in population as a result of these duties on the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman himself, the consumption has decreased by £50,000; notwithstanding the difference in prosperity in those years and the increase of population, the duty has actually decreased by £50,000. With regard to retail licences, in spite of the difference in those two years as regards prosperity in trade, the number of those licences issued in the year 1910 was actually 2,000 less than in the year 1908. I should like to remind the House that this is a case of history repeating itself. What the predecessors in office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down was that really the only way to benefit the Treasury, so far as the Tobacco Duties are concerned, is to endeavour to increase the consumption, and any increase of the Tobacco Duty does not really benefit the Treasury. In the year 1887, Sir Stafford Northcote, in his Budget statement, when he reduced the Tobacco Duty from 3s. 6d. to 3s. 2d., said:—
"The Tobacco Duties were raised from 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. in the year 1878, and the Fiscal result of this has bee" most unsatisfactory. The first year under the higher duty it was expected to yield an increased revenue of £750,000, but it only yielded £500,000 additional, and in subsequent years the result has been still more unfavourable. The increase in the consumption of tobacco, which was 11 per cent. during the five years between 1872 and 1876, fell to 5 per cent. in the period between 1877 and 1881. We checked the consumption of tobacco, and what was the effect upon the quality of the tobacco of the smoker? It will be seen that the consumption does not increase in ratio to the population. The increase in consumption of tobacco before the duty was raised was twice as fast as the increase after, and since that time the consumption has not increased as fast as the population and the consumption per head is now less than it was."
That was in 1887, when Sir Stafford Northcote was making his Budget statement. Lord St. Aldwyn, in April, 1898, in his Budget statement, further reduced the Tobacco Duty from 3s. 2d. to 2s. 8d., and he said:—
"I see in a reduction of the cost of tobacco which will reach the consumer the greatest probability that the consumption will so increase that before long the Revenue will be recouped for the reduction."
From the point of view of Revenue itself, the best chance of increasing it is to reduce the duty on tobacco, and thus increase the consumption. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), in his Budget speech in April, 1904, said:—
"Tobacco has done well during the past year: it is already heavily taxed. I am advised that considering the amount I require, to obtain it from tobacco alone would involve so great an increase in duty that it would seriously check consumption and destroy the purpose for which it was proposed. I do not, therefore, propose to make any general alteration in the rates of the tobacco duty."

1571
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is unable to make any reduction in this duty to-night. Speaking on behalf of those who are suffering in my own sonstituency, may I suggest that when the Government are considering the Budget for next year, they should bear in mind the grievance to which attention has been called, and also bear in mind what has happened in the past when attempts have been made to raise the Tobacco Duty, the only result of which has been to defeat the object of the Treasury.
Mr. JOHN WALSH: I am bound to say I consider the statement of the right hon.
Gentleman most unsatisfactory, for I think every one must admit that a strong case has been made out for some concession to this industry. If the Nationalist party, however, were really opposed to this British policy of killing every little industry in Ireland for the sake of England, surely a very simple and effective way of making their protest would be to walk into the Lobby and vote against the Government.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 290.

Division No. 97.]

AYES.

[6.18 p.m.

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

Gibbs, G. A.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Ashley, W. W.

Gilhooly, James

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Astor, Waldorf

Gilmour, Captain J.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Baird, J. L.

Goldman, C. S.

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

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

Goldsmith, Frank

Perkins, Walter F.

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Peto, Basil Edward

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, J. A.

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Haddock, George Bahr

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

Barlow, Montagu (Salford, S.)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Barnston, H.

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Harris, Henry Percy

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Remnant, James Farquharsen

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Rice, Hon. W.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hill, Sir Clement

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beresford, Lord C.

Hills, J. W.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bigland, Alfred

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Bird, A.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Sanders, Robert A.

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

Hohler, G. F.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Boyton, J.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Brassey, H Leonard Campbell

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Butcher, J. G. (York)

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Spear, John Ward

Campion, W. R.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Stanier, Beville

Castlereagh, Viscount

Joynson-Hicks, William

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cator, John

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Starkey, John B.

Cautley, H. S.

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cave, George

Kerry, Earl of

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Stewart, Gershom

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Swift, Rigby

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Knight, Captain E. A.

Sykes, Alan John

Clive, Percy Archer

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Clyde, J. Avon

Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

Walker, Col, William Hall

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cripps, Sir C. A.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Walsh, J. (Cork, South)

Dairymple, Viscount

Macmaster, Donald

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

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C Scott

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Dixon, C. H.

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Falle, B. G.

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

Wolmer, Viscount

Fell, Arthur

Mount, William Arthur

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

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Newdegate, F. A.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Newman, John R. P.

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

Fleming, Valentine

Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Pttersfield)

Yerburgh, Robert

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Younger, George

Frewen, Moreton

Norton-Griffiths, John

Gardner, Ernest

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Archer-Shee and Mr. Cassel.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Acland, Francis Dyke

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Martin, Joseph

Adamson, William

Essex, Richard Walter

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Addison, Dr. C.

Falconer, J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Fenwick, Charles

Meagher, Michael

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

Ferens, T. R.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Agnew, Sir George William

Ffrench, Peter

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Field, William

Menzies, Sir Walter

Alden, Percy

Fitzgibbon, John

Millar, James Duncan

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Molloy, M.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

France, G. A.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Anderson, A.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Mond, Sir Alfred

Armitage, R.

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Money, L. G. (Chiozza)

Ashton, Thomas Galr

Gill, A. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Glanville, H. J.

Morgan, George Hay

Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morrell, Philip

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Goldstone, Frank

Muldoon, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Munro, R.

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Barnes, G. N.

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

Needham, Christopher T.

Barry, Rdmond John

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

Neilson, Francis

Barton, W.

Gulland, John William

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Beale, W. P.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Nolan, Joseph

Beauchamp, Edward

Hackett, J.

Norman, Sir Henry

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

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

Hancock, J. G.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Bentham, G. J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Hardie, J. Keir

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Black, Arthur W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Doherty, Philip

Boland, John Pius

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

O'Donnell, Thomas

Booth, Frederick Handel

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Grady, James

Bowerman, C. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Malley, William

Brace, William

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Brigg, Sir John

Hayward, Evan

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Palmer, Godfrey

Bryce, J. Annan

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

Parker, James (Halifax)

Burke, E. Haviland.

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hinds, John

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

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

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Byles, William Pollard

Hodge, John

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pointer, Joseph

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Sir George H.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Hughes, S. L.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Chancellor, H. G.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Johnson, W.

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

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pringle, William M. R.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Radford, G. H.

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Corbett, A. Cameron

Joyce, Michael

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Keating, M.

Reddy, M.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Kellaway, Frederick George

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cowan, W. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William (Clare)

Crawshay-William, Eliot

Kilbride, Denis

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Crooks, William

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Crumley, Patrick

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Lansbury, George

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

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

Robinson, Sidney

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Dawes, J. A.

Logan, John William

Roche, John

Delany, William

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Roe, Sir Thomas

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Rowlands, James

Devlin, Joseph

Lundon, T.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Lynch, A. A.

St. Maur, Harold

Dickinson, W. H.

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

Dillon, John

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Donelan, Captain A.

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

Duffy, William J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

M'Callum, John M.

Sheehy, David

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Kean, John

Shortt, Edward

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

Elverston, H.

Marks, G. Croydon

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

1574

1575

Smyth, Thomas F.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Snowden, P.

Verney, Sir Harry

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Soares, Ernest J.

Wadsworth, John

Wiles, Thomas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Summers, James Wooley

Waring, Walter

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

Sutherland, J. E.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Sutton, John E.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Winfrey, Richard

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Tennant, Harold John

Watt, Henry A.

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Webb, H.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Toulmin, George

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

NEW CLAUSE.—(Payment of Licence Duty by Instalments.)
For the words "exceeds the sum of sixty pounds," in Section Forty-nine, Subsection (3), of the principal Act (which relates to the payment of licence duty by instalments in certain cases), there shall be substituted the words "is the sum of twenty pounds or any sum in excess thereof," and that section shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Younger.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. YOUNGER: I do not intend to occupy very much time, because I have little anticipation of any concession by the Government, and I do not want to waste the time of the House on this Clause when there are other more important Clauses to come. Under the new and very heavy scale of duties, the Government itself originally proposed that all licences above £60 should in future be payable in two instalments. Last year, in order probably to somewhat ease the situation for these licence-holders in a very harsh year, when they had three lots of duties to pay, the Government reduced the limit to £20 and allowed the duties to be paid in two instalments. I am proposing in this Clause merely to enact the Government's own Clause of last year with a slight difference. They propose that licences above £20 should be so treated. I propose that licences of £20 and upwards should be so treated. The Postmaster-General (Mr. Samuel), who, I am sorry to see has come in to take charge of this particular Clause, knows very well that the minimum duty of £20 affects a very large number of licence-holders, and it is for that reason I have included the £20 instead of making it only licences over £20. A very good case can be made out for this concession, and I do not think it means very much to the Customs and Excise authority. They have the machinery for collecting these taxes already in working order. They
1576
have found no difficulty in collecting the duties on licences above £60 in this way, and there is very little risk of bad debts. If you reduce the limit, it might be necessary to somewhat alter the date on which the second payment should be made. The date in the principal Act is 1st March. That might be a little too close the end of the financial year, and I should be willing to make it 10th February in order to give a further fortnight.
I should like to make a personal statement with regard to what happened last night, when I made a certain statement with regard to the valuation of premises. I said premises not within the curtilage of the licensed premises were included for the purposes of assessment, and I thought that was an exceedingly unfair thing to be done, and many hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed. At the end of the Debate the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made this statement:—
"I have had au opportunity of consulting the officials of the Customs and Excise Department, and they assure me they are much surprised at the statements made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland (Mr. Gretton) and the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Younger). They conveyed to me their surprise that the cases of the assessment of separate curtilages, such as stables, existed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1911, col. 1448.]
I have no doubt whatever that statement was made by the officials to the right hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension. I was under no misapprehension, nor was the hon. Member for Rutland when we made our statement. It was absolutely correct. I have cases here which I could give to prove it. I am only concerned to make these few remarks, because I do not wish the House to think I ever make statements without having done my best to make certain they are correct. I have a very good case here, but I do not wish to read it, because I am aware it is only by indulgence I am allowed to make this explanation. We were both sure of our facts. I have already convinced the Excise officials that those facts were correct, and I desired to make this explanation in moving this Clause.
Mr. PEEL: I beg to second the Motion.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The expectation of the hon. Member as to the fate of this Clause at the hands of the Government will, I am afraid, be fulfilled. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see his way to make the concession in connection with the revenue which is asked for. When the Budget of 1909 was being passed in this House very large sums of money were asked from some licence-holders—sums amounting to £200 and £300—and it was at my suggestion, although the hon. Member accuses me of being particularly hard-hearted, that the Clauses were modified so that the licence-holders might, in view of the additional burdens cast upon them, be allowed to distribute them over two instalments. The sums for which this provision was made were above £60, but the Board of Excise went even further, and, as a special concession, allowed this system of payment to apply to sums of £20, because in October that year the publicans were being asked to pay the full Licence Duty for one year, although only three months before they had been asked to contribute the additional Licence Duty imposed by the Budget of 1908. These things came very close on the heels of one another, and there was a disorganisation in the collection of revenue caused by the long delay in passing the Finance Bill. But there are serious objections to continuing that special concession year by year. The sums suggested
are small, and to accept two instalments of £10 would add, not merely to the labour but also to the expense of collecting the national revenue. There would further be a risk of loss of revenue in some cases consequent on the instalment being thrown over into the next financial year. For these reasons, and in view of the fact that the sum is not an excessive one to be paid in one amount, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: These duties fall very heavily indeed on small people in our large cities, and especially those who come under the minimum for beer houses. The former rate for a beerhouse was a uniform one of £3 10s., but it has now been raised in cities with a population of 100,000 to £23 10s. We have more important business to come, and therefore I will not detain the House by giving figures to show the need for some relief in the direction suggested. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if these men are allowed to contribute this money in two amounts it will be a great relief to them, while the Exchequer would only lose a small amount of interest. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and, if they cannot now make the concession, will bear it in mind in connection with the Budget of next year.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 282.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Mineral Rights Duties.)
(1) For the purpose of Section 20 of the principal Act there shall be deducted from rental value as defined by that section—

(a) Where the right to work the minerals is the subject of a mining lease, any sum or sums payable under any Act for the time being in force for any tax, rate, or other statutory payment or outgoing in respect of the rent constituting the rental value;

(b) A sum equal to one-twentieth part of such rent as being the estimated expenses incurred by the person entitled thereto in the ascertainment of the amount thereof and otherwise in connection with the survey and management of the property out of which the same arises, and Mineral Rights Duty shall only be charged, levied and paid for the financial year ending thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven, and every subsequent year on the rental value as defined by the said Section after the deductions mentioned in this Section shall have been made therefrom.

(2) Where minerals are being worked by the proprietor thereof a sum or sums equal to the sum or sums which would be deducted in case the right to work minerals had been the subject of a mining lease.
(3) The sum which may be deducted from rent under Section twenty-one of the principal Act shall be a sum equal to the Mineral Rights Duty on a rental value of the same amount as the rent payable after deductions mentioned in this section shall have been made in respect thereof.—[Mr. W. R. Peel.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. W. R. PEEL: The House will see that this Amendment is not aimed at the Mineral Rights Duty. It simply has for its object to effect certain alterations in the method of assessment and administration. The Amendment is divided into two parts. The first deals with deductions of taxes and rates and other statutory outgoings, which I suggest should be made from the gross amount before the Mineral Rights Duty of 1s. is assessed on that amount. The second portion of it deals with a certain allowance. I suggest an

1583
allowance of one-twentieth for cost of collection. The House will see that the principle of both these two portions of my Amendment is the same, and that is that a man should only pay the tax upon what he actually receives or upon the amount which he receives less that which has immediately to be paid out in order to meet the cost of collection. What are the taxes which already have to be paid upon the profit a man gets in this way? He has to pay Income Tax. He may have to pay Super-tax. He pays Land Duty, and in Scotland, as the Lord Advocate knows very well, he has to pay half the rates. In England, in regard to iron mines, he has to pay a portion of the rates as well. I will take one concrete case to show what the effect of the tax is already. I take a case where a man gets £10,000 a year in mining royalties. First of all, upon this he would pay Income Tax 1s. 2d., £583 6s. 8d. Then he pays Land Tax 1s., £500. There is another £250 for Super-tax, and on these three taxes he would have to pay altogether £1,333 6s. 8d. So that he would receive not £10,000 but £8,666 13s. 4d. It will be seen that he actually has to pay a Mineral Duty of 1s. on that £1,333 6s. 8d. which he never received at all, and the result is he has actually to pay an additional £66 odd in Mineral Duty on money which is paid away to the State, which he cannot retain in his pocket, and which he never gets at all. I submit that is a most absurd injustice and hardship, and I feel sure the Government will do something to remedy it.
You must remember that these are not all the taxes that fall upon the mineral owner, because, after all, there is Increment Duty, and all these taxes are cumulative and the Increment Duty may fall in regard to them. I have a case here where, owing to the ignorance of a sister of a man who was going to sell minerals—her ignorance being that she did not state what the price of the minerals was—the Commissioners assumed that the minerals were worth nothing at all. Ten days after this valuation the mineral property was sold for £11,000, and the Commissioners deducted about £2,000 for the value of the land. So that actually ten days after the valuation the man was charged £1,600 for Increment Duty, being one-fifth of the whole amount of the minerals, simply because this unfortunate error had been made in filling up Form IV. That shows the risk which owners of mineral rights may run. It may be
1584
said, in the case of the Super-tax, you do levy it upon the gross amount, and you are not allowed to deduct the income. That is true, but the Super-tax has been treated as an additional Income Tax to the original Income Tax of 1s. 2d., and the tax is 1s. 8d. in the case of money going up to the extent of over £5,000 a year. I believe, however, there is no intention to treat this Mineral Rights Duty as another Super-tax. At least, there was no such intention expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced it. I say that the effect of levying the 1s. Mineral Rights Duty on the gross amount is that you really levy a higher tax upon the amount which the man actually receives. If you are going to do it, it would be much fairer that you should levy your 1s. 2d. or 1s. 8d. Income Tax upon the amount which the man actually received, in order that the public and the man himself may thoroughly appreciate the extent to which he is being taxed. Perhaps I may add in this connection that, as mines are in the nature of a wasting asset, that is another reason for being fair to the man, because this tax is one, not only upon income, but upon capital as well. I submit that I have shown a case for the first portion of my Amendment which provides that the tax shall be levied upon the net amount.
My second proposal refers to the cost of collection. Hon. Members are familiar with the fact that in a great many other cases an allowance is made for the cost of collection. I do not want to compare local rates with Imperial taxation, but in some cases a deduction is made and you levy on the net amount on which Income Tax is paid. In the case of a local authority in allowing poundage to a landlord they give him 10 or 15 per cent. off the gross amount for empties, and it is obvious that a man does not get into his pocket the whole of that which he is supposed to get. The cost of collection in regard to mining royalties must be considerable. I put it at one-twentieth, and that is the minimum cost as far as I can find out in testing several accounts. One-twentieth is the minimum, and in the case of many estates it is more than that. There are two main ways of dealing with the collection of royalties, the methods in regard to which vary in different parts of the country. I am speaking chiefly of England, and there one way is to charge so much per square foot or per acre. The other is to charge so much on royalty paid for every ton of coal drawn out of the mouth

1585
of the pit; but, of course, in order that an owner may check what he ought to get he must employ a surveyor, and this surveyor in both cases must be able to measure the amount of coal obtained, and in that way the man arrives at the amount of royalty which ought to be paid.
Of course these gentlemen do not give their time for nothing, and as far as I can make out the charge is about 5 per cent. on the total amount. I need not enlarge upon the difficulties in regard to mines. There are many cases which arise as a man goes on working a mine which have to be reported upon by a surveyor, and in the case of smaller owners you have five or six of them with coal coming up from the same pit, and there is a good deal of difficulty in deciding whether the coal comes from the property of one man or the property of the other. I only give these few instances, but I could multiply them at great length, in order to show-that the cost of the collection of these royalties is considerable, and that it is fair on the analogy of these other cases, and on principle itself, that some deduction should be made in this case. There are only just two other small points which are dealt with in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Clause, and I submit that in the interests of fair play these deductions ought to be allowed. Of course this is a new tax, and it is very important if you are putting on a new impost of this kind that it should be worked as easily as possible and create as small an amount of irritation as possible among those from whom the tax is drawn. As regards the Exchequer, I think these deductions will not make a very great difference. But it will make a very great difference to the sense of fairness with which people regard these taxes. This proposal of mine will only round off the ragged edges of the tax, and make people feel that it is collected with a little more fairness than it would be if these deductions were not allowed.
7.0 P.M.
Colonel GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN: I wish in the fewest possible words to second this new Clause. I say in a few words because the matter is a very simple one, and is easily understandable, and there are many other new clauses to be moved, and I do not think much time need be taken on this one. But I do appeal to the Government to make us a concession on this matter because as my hon. Friend says, it will not cost very much, and it is a concession which will be a very great advantage. The principle on which the
1586
Clause is based is a very simple one, and it is this, that a man shall not pay a tax upon a tax. In the present instance men are compelled to pay a tax upon a tax, and what we ask is that if you are to have this Mineral Rights Duty it should only be paid upon the money which comes into the pocket of the mineral rights owners. The mineral rights owners, however much they dislike it, are prepared to pay this duty, but they say they are prepared to pay it upon money they actually receive, and not upon money which they do not receive at all. I really think the case of the mineral owner is a very hard one. He is paying in the Mineral Rights Duty what amounts to a second Income Tax, because it is absolutely true that if one man invests his money in consols and the other in mineral royalties, the first one pays only Income Tax and the other pays Income Tax plus Mineral Rights Duty. That being so we ask in the case of this special tax that it should only be leviable on the amount of money received. We might take the analogy from the case of the rates. As is well known, a deduction is made in the case of rating so that a man has only to pay on the net amount of rent actually received. Just as a man only pays rates on the net amount, so Mineral Rights Duty ought only to be paid on the net amount, after deducting the taxes he already has to pay, and the rates, if any, and the cost of collection, which my hon. Friend has put down at a very small amount. It is constantly held by hon. Members opposite that if we defend the owner of mineral rights or the owner of minerals we are defending or asking favours for a special class of particularly greedy people, all of whom belong to the wealthier classes. That is absolutely not the case. In the district that I represent the mines are very small, and the coalfields have been split amongst a very large number of people, many of them comparatively poor, who have bought the minerals and work their own mines. It is exceedingly hard on that class that they should have to pay this very heavy duty, and pay on money that they never received.
Mr. BOOTH: I trust the Government will not respond in any sympathetic manner to the request of hon. Members opposite that these owners of royalties should escape their fair burden of contributing to the State. I have no doubt the hon. Members are perfectly sincere in

1587
their proposals, and I only regret that their knowledge of this particular matter is so limited. I have a very considerable experience of paying mining royalties on coal and on ironstone, and I consider that with regard to the whole range and scope of this Bill there is no receiver of income who, in my opinion, who is let off so lightly as the receiver of mining royalties. If the hon. Member got a concession of this character, it could only mean that in future Budgets, the amount, instead of being Is., would be raised to 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. I take it that the object of the Bill is to acquire revenue for the purposes of the State, and, speaking as one of those who have embarked a considerable amount of money in this particular business, it seems to me that of all the sources of revenue to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might apply his mind there is no more fruitful field and no more just field for exacting a contribution to the expenses of the State than the receiver of royalties. The hon. Members do not, perhaps, know the full meaning of the Clause they have proposed. I see no definite mention of the question of way-leaves. The most important part, as a rule, of a mining lease is that which relates to way-leaves, and it seems to me that where the owner of a way-leave exacts the uttermost contribution, as he usually does, from those who are working the lease it is quite time the State stepped in, and asked for a substantial contribution to pay for "Dreadnoughts" to keep the Germans from coming to possess those very way-leaves. I am surprised that hon. Members representing those who have such valuable interests, as a rule men of great wealth, are not concerned that they should pay a large contribution in order that the country may be saved from invasion. The position of a way-leave owner is one of exceptional opportunity. He owns a small strip of land and, if you get a mining lease which is contemplated in this Clause to work your own plot, and you go under the narrow strip belonging to the owner to get coal also leased to you on the other side of the narrow strip, he exacts so much on every ton of coal passing underneath. There are very few Members who have so delightful an occupation as that of receiving way-leaves. Any clause ought to be willing to make a substantial contribution, not of 1s., but of 2s. 6d. or 5s. in the £.
If hon. Members press this point very much further they will not do any kindness to their friends. The more this question is discussed the more it will be seen
1588
that the amount exacted is altogether insignificant. When that slip of ground to which I have referred happens to belong to the public, it may be a common or a public highway since the time of the Romans, those private owners who also happen to be colliery proprietors contribute nothing in the way of way-leaves to the public. They make none of those concessions to the public interest which they exact from those who are at the head of industries working the coal. I would ask hon. Members to beware about bringing forward such Clauses as this. In their interests I will not proceed to discuss it and analyse it line by line. I am perfectly certain if the business people of this country, those who pay on their hard earned savings to Income Tax and various other taxes, should realise the injustice of their position as compared with the favourable position of these receivers of mining royalties, they would get proposals which would startle them. It is out of kindness to hon. Members opposite, who have always a sympathy with the rich landlord or receiver of royalties, and in order that legislation upon this subject may be moderate, that I decline to go through the Clause and tell the House all I know about the subject. The position is largely this. Collieries which I could name are working without making any profit. They are paying huge sums to these receivers of royalties, and it would be a matter of great astonishment to many of us concerned in the industry if, after carrying them through in periods of great difficulties, and paying away all the profits in many cases to these receivers of royalties, we should hear that they are disinclined to pay a contribution to the Exchequer out of the magnitude of their resources. It will arouse questions in the minds of the business men of this country, as well as of the representatives of labour, if they pursue this subject. They have alluded to the cost of collection. Never since I came into the House a few weeks ago have I heard such an absurd statement brought forward. I wish hon. Members, if they wish to serve their friends, would take a little more trouble to do them justice. Have hon. Members never heard of a mining lease where the whole of the cost of collection and survey is put against the men working the lease?
What is the position? The landowner, the friend of many hon. Members opposite, has a piece of ground under which scientists tell him there is coal or ironstone,

1589
which may be worked under a lease. The owner gives an opportunity, at the expense of the seeker, to go and bore in his land, it may be in his park, or his paddock, or his field, and the business men, the co-adventurers, club together and pay the railway fare of the experts and come on to the landowners' territory at their own expense, with their own ideas. The owner in the meantime, I suppose, is sitting in his house defending his rights. They bore and they get certain results, which are analysed and submitted to the proprietor of the land, and afterwards, if the business men can make it worth while, they begin operations. The landowner will exact a royalty per ton, with the stipulation of a minimum royalty, whether the number of tons are got or not. Under these circumstances the business men can go and develop the land belonging to the protégé of hon. Members who have brought this Clause in. The boring is to be at the expense of the business men, and the surveying is to be at the expense of the business men; but that is not sufficient. The land in the ordinary way may be bringing in a farming rent, and although the landowner receives a large increase of income from the mining, he is not inclined to lose the small income he is getting from the farmer, and he, therefore, stipulates that they shall, not merely pay the royalties upon the minerals they get, but also compensate the farmer for the loss of his plot and restore the top soil after they have removed the ironstone. I am speaking now more particularly of the ironstone which is got in Lincolnshire. The landowner does not lose a shilling of his agricultural rent. He has not spent a single shilling. He has employed no scientist, no engineer, and no workmen, but he stipulates to have his amount per ton on all that is got, with no loss of his agricultural rent.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the needs of the State, after he has got in his Income Tax and his various duties, looks around the whole arena of business of rent receiving and income receiving, surely when he wants a small contribution extra for the needs of the State to keep away this foreign foe which terrorises hon. Gentlemen opposite he can find no more suitable quarter to apply for that extra contribution than the receiver of mining royalties and of wayleaves. I trust hon. Members opposite will give me credit that I leave the subject with a considerable amount of regret. I am somewhat familiar with it, and could perhaps go on a
1590
little further and make a party score. I am not anxious to do that. I am only speaking from a business standpoint. If they wish to do their friends justice let them speak as little as possible on such Clauses as this.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I wish to thank the hon. Member on behalf of Members on this side for his kindness in letting us off a party score. I wish to approach the matter from a Scottish point of view. I am one of those landlords who have considerably more of the minerals which are employed in a Louth election than are employed apparently in Cheltenham, and so far as coals are concerned I have no personal interest in them. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not quite bear in mind that there is a difference between the system of rating minerals in Scotland and in England. In England the local rates are paid, I think, by law, nearly always by the tenant, and the owner receives his net rent in full. In Scotland there is a considerable difference, and the owner has to pay his share of all the local rates, that is to say, Police Rate, Road Rates, Public Health Rates, and School Rates. Therefore, you find that an owner in an ordinary mining district in Scotland probably has to pay something like 2s. 6d. in the £, or about 12½ per cent. on the net rent, as compared with an Englishman. I believe there are cases exactly the same in England, otherwise this case would not have arisen. I do not for a moment suppose even the hon. Member who has just spoken wishes to have different landlords differentially treated. He surely wants them to be all equally badly or equally well treated. What we are asking for as far as Scotland is concerned is that we may be put on an-equality with English landlords in this particular respect. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite forget that mineral rents or royalties are a return on a subject, which is gradually exhausting, so that the proportions of the rent or royalty, which, of course, is greater or less according to the rights of the mineral, is a return of the price, or, in other words, of capital, and yet you will find the whole rental royalty is treated as income right through, and assessed for Income Tax and local rates. That does not seem very fair. It is an absolute and distinct departure from all methods of taxation in almost every other department. The Solicitor-General for

1591
Scotland knows perfectly well that Scottish mine owners are differentially treated, and not as fairly treated as English mine owners. I am sorry that there are only about three Scottish Members in the House at present. This is a matter that affects the whole of the mining industry in Scotland. I hope hon. Members, if the Motion goes to a division, will vote in favour of equal, and not unequal, taxation in Scotland. We have already had an example of this in regard to the Tobacco Duties in Ireland, and I hope that Irish Members will support Scotland on this particular question.
Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: The point raised by the hon. Member is a simple one. In Scotland, the owner of mining royalties does pay local rates, while the owner of mining royalties in England does not. I do not very much care whether the mining royalty owner in England is called upon to pay local rates, or whether the mining royalty owner in Scotland is relieved of them, but I say the tax should be made equal. I do not mind which way it is done.
Mr. LANE-FOX: I wish to try to bring back the Debate to the actual Clause now before the House. The hon. Gentleman opposite made a very emphatic speech, such as might have been made if we were dealing with the whole subject of mining royalties. But this Clause does not deal with the whole question. It merely deals with fairness of administration. When the whole question is before the House we shall, no doubt, receive from the hon. Gentleman the rest of the pearls which we were spared this evening. When he accuses us of not knowing the subject of which we are talking, and not knowing the meaning of the Clause, I would ask him to study the Finance Act which this clause is intended to amend. He will find that the words rental value will cover way-leaves. What we complain of is that this taxation is not as fair as other taxation in the country. This constitutes a tax upon a tax. After all, it is not a matter of opinion. The fact remains that in the vast majority of cases the income is not received, and the amount should not be counted as income. The point is a very simple one, and I hope it will be sympathetically dealt with by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not intend to go into the whole question of mining
1592
royalties, although I think a good deal might be said in support of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). The hon. Member who' initiated this Debate (Mr. Peel) said he was not attacking the Mineral Rights-Duty, and the hon. Member for the Bark-stone Ash Division (Mr. Lane-Fox) says he does not question the Mineral Rights Duty. They may not be attacking it, but what they are doing is attempting to whittle it away. When this House imposed the tax at the rate of 5 per cent. it knew perfectly well that in respect of rental values there was no deduction in the case of Income Tax or similar taxes. It meant it to be a tax on the total amount received by the mineral rights owner.
Mr. PEEL: Received?
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, received on the rental value. The House was seized of the facts, and it knew what it was doing when it imposed that rate. It is not the intention of the Government to reduce that rate from 5 per cent., at which it was then fixed. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment told us that any concession would be greatly valued. I hope that would be so, but I am bound to say that it has not yet been the experience of the Government in making concessions. The whole of this Bill has been in the way of concessions, but they have not been appreciated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think they have encouraged us to go in any way or in any direction at all to meet them further than we have done. There is only one other point in regard to which I wish to say a word, and that is in regard to the treatment of mine owners in Scotland. There is undoubtedly a difference as regards this tax between the treatment of Scottish and English mine owners, and also some differentiation under the Rating Act of 1874. It is clearly impossible, even if I had the will, to make any alteration in this matter. I make no promise at all for the future in respect of it. But at all events, the fact has been brought to my notice, and I think the Noble Lord must be content with that statement.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes. 171; Noes, 287.

Division No. 98.]

AYES.

[6.35 p.m.

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

Cator, John

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Cautley, H. S.

Forster, Henry William

Ashley, W. W.

Cave, George

Gardner, Ernest

Attar, Waldorf

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Baird, J. L.

Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

Gibbs, G. A.

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

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Gilmour, Captain J.

Balcarres, Lord

Clive, Percy Archer

Goldman, C. S.

Baldwin, Stanley

Clyde, J. Avon

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Grant, J. A.

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Guinness, Hon. W. E.

Baring, Captain Hon. G.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Haddock, George Bahr

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Barnston, H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Harris, Henry Percy

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

Croft, H. P.

Helmsley, Viscount

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dairymple, Viscount

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

Hickman, Colonel T.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Hill, Sir Clement

Beresford, Lord C.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Hills, J. W.

Bird, A.

Dixon, C. H.

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Hohler, G. F.

Boyton, J.

Falle, B. G.

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Fell, Arthur

Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Bull, Sir William James

Finlay, Sir Robert

Houston, Robert Paterson

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Fisher, W. Hayes

Hunt, Rowland

Butcher, J. G. (York)

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Campion, W. R.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fleming, Valentine

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Joynson-Hicks, William

Nield, Herbert

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

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

Starkey, John R.

Kerry, Earl of

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Stewart, Gershom

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Swift, Rigby

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

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

Sykes, Alan John

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Perkins, Walter F.

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Peto, Basil Edward

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Leo, Arthur H.

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Thynne, Lord A.

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

Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

Touche, George Alexander

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Tulilbardine, Marquess of

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

Ratcliff, R. F.

Walker, Col. William Hall

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Macmaster, Donald

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Rice, Hon. W.

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

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Morpeth, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Wolmer, Viscount

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

Sanders, Robert A.

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

Mount, William Arthur

Sanderson, Lancelot

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Newdegate, F. A.

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Newman, John R. P.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Spear, John Ward

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Younger and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Stanier, Beville

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Adamson, William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Addison, Dr. C.

Corbett, A. Cameron

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

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

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Agnew, Sir George William

Crooks, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Crumley, Patrick

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Alden, Percy

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hayden, John Patrick

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Hayward, Evan

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Anderson, A.

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

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Armitage, R.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Higham, John Sharp

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dawes, J. A.

Hinds, John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Horbert Henry

Delany, William

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Hodge, John

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Devlin, Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

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

Hudson, Walter

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Dillon, John

Hughes, S. L.

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Donelan, Captain A.

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Barnes, G. N.

Duffy, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Johnson, W.

Barton, W.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Beale, W. P.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Beauchamp, Edward

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Bonn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Bentham, G. J.

Elverston, H.

Jowett, F. W.

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Joyce, Michael

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Keating, M.

Black, Arthur W.

Essex, Richard Walter

Kellaway, Frederick George

Boland, John Pius

Falconer, J.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Booth, Frederick Handel

Fenwick, Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Bowerman, C. W.

Ferens, T. R.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Ffrench, Peter

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Brace, William

Field, William

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Brigg, Sir John

Fitzgibbon, John

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Brocklehurst, William B.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lansbury, George

Bryce, J. Annan

France, G. A.

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Lewis, John Herbert

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Logan, John William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gill, A. H.

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Glanville, H. J.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Byles, William Pollard

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Lundon, T.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Goldstone, Frank

Lynch, A. A.

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Chancellor, H. G.

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

Maclean, Donald

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Clancy, John Joseph

Hackett, J.

M'Callum, John M.

Clynes, J. R.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hancock, J. G.

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

1580

1581

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Snowden, Philip

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Martin, Joseph

Pointer, Joseph

Strachey, Sir Edward

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Summers, James Woolley

Meagher, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Sutherland, J. E.

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Sutton, John E.

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

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Menzies, Sir Walter

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

Tennant, Harold John

Millar, James Duncan

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Molloy, M.

Pringle, William M. R.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Radford, G. H.

Toulmin, George

Mond, Sir Alfred M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Mooney, J. J.

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Verney, Sir Harry

Morgan, George Hay

Reddy, M.

Wadsworth, J.

Morrell, Philip

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Muldson, John

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wardle, George J.

Munro, R.

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Needham, Christopher T.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Watt, Henry A.

Neilson, Francis

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Webb, H.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Nolan, Joseph

Robinson, Sidney

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Norman, Sir Henry

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

Norton, Capt Cecil W.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Roe, Sir Thomas

Whitehouse, John Howard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rowlands, James

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wiles, Thomas

O'Doherty, Philip

St. Maur, Harold

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

O'Donnell, Thomas

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

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

O'Grady, James

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

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

O'Malley, William

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

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

Winfrey, Richard

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehy, David

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Palmer, Godfrey

Shortt, Edward

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Parker, James (Halifax)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Cilthero)

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Division No. 99.]

AYES.

[7.25 p.m.

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

Forster, Henry William

Newdegate, F. A.

Ashley, W. W

Gardner, Ernest

Newman, John R. P.

Astor, Waldort

Gastrell, Major W. H.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Gibbs, G. A.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Baird, J. Lawrence

Gilmour, Captain J.

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

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

Goldman, C. S.

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

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Grant, J. A.

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

Greene, W. R.

Perkins, Walter F.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gretton, John

Peto, Basil Edward

Banner, John S. Harmood.

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Haddock, George Bahr

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Barnston, H.

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Pryce-Jenes, Col. E.

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Quilter, William Eley C.

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

Harris, Henry Percy

Ratcliff, R. F.

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Rawson, Colonel R. H.

Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hickman, Colonel T.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hill, Sir Clement

Rice, Hon. W.

Beresford, Lord C.

Hills, J. W.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Hill-Wood, Samuel

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Boyton, J.

Hoare, S. J. G.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hohler, G. F.

Sanders, Robert A.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Bull, Sir W. J.

Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Butcher, J. G. (York)

Hume-Williams, W. E.

Spear, John Ward

Campion, W. R.

Hunt, Rowland

Stanier, Beville

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ingleby, Holcombe

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Presten)

Cator, John

Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

Starkey, John R.

Cautley, H. S.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Stewart, Gershom

Clay, Captain H. Spender

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Swift, Rigby

Clyde, J. Avon

Kimber, Sir Henry

Sykes, Alan John

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir clamant

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kirkwood, J. H. M.

Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

Thynne, Lord A.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Touche, George Alexander

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Larmer, Sir J.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Craik, Sir Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Croft, H. P.

Lee, Arthur H.

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

Dairymple, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

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

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

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

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

Dixon, C. H.

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Wolmer, Viscount

Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

Macmaster, Donald

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

Falle, B. G.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Wortley, Rt. Hen. C. B. Stuart.

Finlay, Sir Robert

Morpeth, Viscount

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

Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

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

Younger, George

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

Fleming, Valentine

Mount, William Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Peel and Col. Griffith-Boscawen.

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

Neville, Reginald J. N.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barton, W.

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

Adamson, William

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Addison, Dr. C.

Beauchamp, Edward

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Agnew, Sir George William

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

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bentham, G. J

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Alden, Percy

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Chancellor, H. G.

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustins

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Black, Arthur W.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Anderson, A. Macbeth

Boland, John Plus

Clancy, John Joseph

Armitage, Robert

Booth, Frederick Handel

Clynes, J. R.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Bowerman, C. W.

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Brace, William

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Brigg, Sir John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Balfour, Sir Robert

Brocklehurst, William B.

Corbett, A. Cameron

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Bryce, John Aunan

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barnes, G. N.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cowan, W. H.

1594

1595

Crooks, William

Joyce, Michael

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Crumley, Patrick

Keating, M.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Dalziel, Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Davies, E. William (Eifion)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Reddy, M.

Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

Lamb, Ernest Henry

Redmond, William (Clare)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Dawes, J. A.

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Delany, William

Lansbury, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Logan, John William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Dillon, John

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Robinson, Sidney

Donelan, Captain A.

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, T.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lynch, A. A.

Rowlands, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

St. Maur, Harold

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

Maclean, Donald

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

Elibank, Rt Hon. Master of

Macnamara, Dr. T. J.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Elverston, H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel

Essex, Richard Walter

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Sheehy, David

Falconer, J.

Martin, Joseph

Shortt, Edward

Fenwick, Charles

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Ferens, T. R.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

Ffrench, Peter

Meagher, Michael

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Field, William

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Fitzgibbon, John

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

Snowden, Philip

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Menzies, Sir Walter

Spicer, Sir Albert

France, G. A.

Millar, James Duncan

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Molloy, M.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gibson, Sir James P.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Gill, A. H.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Summers, James Woolley

Glanville, H. J.

Mooney, J. J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morgan, George Hay

Sutton, John E

Goldstone, Frank

Morrell, Philip

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

Muldoon, John

Tennant, Harold John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Munro, R.

Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

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

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Toulmin, George

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

Needham, Christopher T.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Neilson, Francis

Verney, Sir Harry

Hackett, J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wadsworth, J.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Nolan, Joseph

Walters, John Tudor

Hancock, John George

Norman, Sir Henry

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Wardle, George J.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Waring, Walter

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Doherty, Philip

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Donnell, Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Grady, James

Webb, H.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hayward, Evan

O'Malley, William

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

White, Sir Luke (Buckrose)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Whitehouse, John Howard

Higham, John Sharp

Palmer, Godfrey M.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hinds, John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wiles, Thomas

Hodge, John

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

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

Hudson, Walter

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Hughes, S. L.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

Hunter, W. (Govan)

Pointer, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Pollard, Sir George H.

Winfrey, Richard

Johnson, W.

Ponsonby, A. A. W. H.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Jones, Edgar Rees (Merthyr Tydvil)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)

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

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

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

Pringle, W. M. R.

Jowett, F. W.

Radford, G. H.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Minimum Liquor Licence Duties in Great Britain.)
There shall be substituted for the scale of Minimum Duty payable for pub-
1596
licans and beerhouse licences in Great Britain contained in Scale 3 Head C, of the First Schedule of the Principal Act, the following scale, that is to say:—

Population.

Minimum Duty.

Publican's Licence.

Beerhouse Licence.

£

s.

£

s

In areas which are not urban areas, and in urban areas with a population of less than 2,000

5

0

3

10

In urban areas with a population of—

2,000 and less than 5,000

7

10

3

15

5,000 and less than 10,000

10

0

5

0

10,000 and less than 50,000

15

0

7

10

50,000 and less than 100,000

20

0

10

0

100,000 or above

25

0

12

10

This Section shall have effect as respects licences granted after the passing of the principal Act and in force at the time of the passing of this Act, and as respects licences granted after the passing of this Act.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. CAVE: Having regard to the conditions under which we are working, I shall move this Clause in a very short speech. The effect of the Clause will be to reduce the minimum Licence Duties from the figures at which they were fixed by the Act of last year to somewhat more reasonable figures, in some cases by twenty, thirty or forty per cent. The reasons for the reduction are shortly these. In the first place we have now some figures showing how many of the houses are subject to the minimum duty, in how many cases the minimum duty exceeds half or one-third the annual value as the case may be, fixed as the duty last year. I have got a number of figures and a list of five boroughs, Birmingham, Bristol, Halifax, Portsmouth, and Southampton. In those five places together the total number of beer-houses is 1,871, and the total number coming under the minimum duty is 1,709, which is a very large proportion of the whole. The second point is that the duties work very harshly indeed upon the small houses. Of course, the theory is that when you have a large population you must have a large custom for these houses. That may be the theory. It is not the fact, because in very many cases the borough itself extends beyond the really populous centre, and includes a great deal of country that is either rural or suburban.
1598
In those cases the houses near the boundary having a very small custom indeed find that the minimum duties fixed by reference to the population of the whole borough work extremely harshly, and are very burdensome on the house itself.
I may give three cases from one borough, the borough of Halifax. One house has an annual value of only £11. The duty before the Act of last year was £3 10s. It is now £23s. 10s., or over twice the annual value of the house itself. In the second case the annual value is £25, and the duty has risen from £3 10s. to £23 10s., or almost the annual value. The third case is just outside the Halifax boundary. The annual value of the house is about the same and the custom is about the same, but the duty remains at a very much smaller sum. The third point I want to put refers to the census which is now coming. There may be houses to which the minimum duty does not now apply, or to which a lower scale applies. The moment the Census figures come out, and the populations are fixed by reference to the new Census, a number of houses just because they are within the boundary of populous places will jump up immediately though there is no increase whatever in the custom, and though the duties may even now be very burdensome. Surely the time has come when these minimum duties should be considered, and when the Government ought to ascertain whether the small licensees are not reasonably entitled to a reduction of their very heavy burden. The fourth point that I want to put is one which we have already discussed to a certain extent, that is the position in cases were boroughs or urban districts are extending. There, again, these minimum duties operate very unfairly. Some cases were mentioned the other night, cases like Cambridge and Birmingham, where there is no relief, and cases like Stoke, where relief had been granted. You extend the boundary of a borough so as to bring the enlarged borough into a higher category as regards duties.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Stoke was not extended.
Mr. CAVE: Stoke was a combination.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would like to know how far we shall be able to go into these special cases of boroughs which have their boundaries extended?
Mr. CAVE: I am not going into this special case. I am putting it as an in-

1599
stance of what is happening. In these cases of borough extension the minimum scale is specially hard, because the effect of the extension of the borough for purely local government purposes is suddenly to increase the minimum duty upon the houses within the borough, and still more upon these houses just around it. In the case of Dewsbury, the Postmaster-General, I think, was not able to give the house full or accurate information the other night. What the Postmaster-General said was that the representation by virtue of which the Government then proposed to give special exemption to the Dewsbury houses did not come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman).
"The representations,"
he said,
"which were made by the publicans of Dewsbury—who by the way are not supporters of the Minister for Education, but are his most bitter opponents—were representations which could have been made by publicans in every other locality similarly situated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday. 28th March", 1011, col. 1194.]
That is what we were told the other day, and, being an unsuspicious person, I, of course, accepted what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Member should also read the passage from my remarks on that occasion, where I said, in referring to the statement that I had said that the President of the Board of Education had nothing to do with the matter:—
I did not say so; I said that the representations were initiated by the publicans of Dewsbury. They naturally went to their Member of Parliament as publicans in any place would do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, March 28th, 1911, col. 1145.]
Mr. CAVE: I was reading from the last speech the right hon. Gentleman made in the Debate, the speech in which he withdrew the Amendment. I read from the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he says it was wrong, of course I acept his statement; at all events, I understood the statement as printed, and that the representations were from the publicans of Dewsbury.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Initiated by them.
Mr. CAVE: That is not the statement here:—
"The representations did not come to us from the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury."
The Postmaster-General will not say that to-day. Before going on with the matter,
1600
let me read what the Postmaster-General continued to say:—
"But I take it as the general desire of the Committee that an effort should be made to see whether or not general words should be used in this connection. While I give no pledge on this subject, the Government are willing to withdraw this Clause, and to see whether this principle of differentiation is the right line of discrimination in these cases. If it is then we will see in what form words to give effect to that principle can be embodied in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday. March 28th. 1911, col. 1191.]
He distinctly promised that the Government, if allowed to withdraw the Clause, would at all events see whether they could not frame a general Clause to cover all cases that would be embodied in the Bill. When I looked at the Paper this morning, I saw no Clause, and that no effort had been made to meet the representations strongly pressed on this side of the House, that while the principle proposed to be applied to Dewsbury was a perfectly fair and proper principle which we support, yet we thought it ought to be generally applied to all these cases. Who would have thought, when that speech was made and the Clause withdrawn without opposition, that a negotiation had been actually going on between the Minister for Education and his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the result that, according to a letter from the Minister of Education which I hold in my hand, the Chancellor had agreed to accept the Dewsbury Clause, provided it could be done in such a way as not to make an opening for further places. I want to give the right hon. Gentleman time for some explanation, and, therefore, I will say no more about the matter except that I do think it requires explanation. I invite the Government to consider one mode, at all events, of dealing with the misunderstanding which occurred the other night, and that is to atone for it by accepting this new Clause.
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to second the Motion. I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend, but under the circumstances in which we are working this evening I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to reply, especially as to the case of Dewsbury.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Clause which it is now proposed to add to the Bill would reopen the scale of taxation which was fully considered by the House of Commons when it passed the Budget of 1900 and which, therefore, ought not to be remodelled, in the view of the Government.

1601
without very strong reason being shown. I put it to the House with confidence that the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) in no degree established the case for an alteration of the scale of taxation of the minimum Licence Duty deliberately resolved upon after full consideration and discussion by the House of Commons two years ago. His points were four. In the first place he said, "We now have figures which tell us how many public-houses are affected by the minimum Licence Duties, and that these figures show that there is a considerable number which are affected by these new Licence Duties, particularly in the case of beerhouses." There is nothing surprising or unanticipated in that. The minimum Licence Duties were put in because they were expected to have an effect, and in order that they might have the effect of raising the scale of Licence Duty upon houses which otherwise, in our view, supported, as we were by the view of the House of Commons, would have been too low. The mere fact that a considerable number of public-houses and of beerhouses are affected by the duties is no reason why the duties themselves should be altered, particularly in the case of beer houses. We were aware that these duties would affect a very considerable number. I do not know whether hon. Members who did not follow the Debate at that time are aware that beer houses had a uniform Licence Duty throughout the country of £3 10s. and no more. A beer house might be doing an enormous trade, thousands of pounds' worth of liquor a year, and the whole of that valuable trade was allowed to be carried on with the derisory, the almost nominal, Licence Duty of £3 10s. Of course, the effect of the additional scale of the minimum Licence Duty was intended, namely, that a large number of houses should pay under a more reasonable scale of Licence Duty. The hon. and learned Member said to-day, as he has said many times in this House, that the Licence Duty on many of these houses was £.3 10s., that under the Licence Duty they now pay £23 10s., and that, therefore, £23 10s. is too high a Licence Duty. 7 fail absolutely to follow that argument.
Mr. CAVE: I said the small houses were rated on £11 or £12 a year.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; the hon. and learned Gentleman said there was thousands of cases throughout the country where the Licence Duty was £3 10s., and
1602
that it has now become £23 10s., which was an enormous jump, and one which indicated an injustice. I deny absolutely that it indicates injustice. One of two conclusions may be drawn from a comparison of the then existing duty and the now existing duty. One conclusion is that the now existing duty is too high; the other is that the then existing duty was too low. I submit to the House, and I do not think anybody can dispute it, that for these houses, even though they may have a small rateable value, the Licence Duty of £3 10s., established very many years ago, was an absurdly low figure under which to carry on a protected trade, a monopoly created by all the provisions of the Licensing Law. A similar figure of £6 or £8 a year was allowed for the publican's spirit licence. That was far too low a figure, and ought properly to have been raised. The third point of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that now the new Census comes into operation, suddenly you will find a jump of the publican's Licence Duty, the licensed houses being taken out of one category and being put into another. But the scale of Licence Duties is to be graduated; there will be a very small and gradual increase of the duty; there will be no sudden jump between the old duties compared with the new. The steps will be gradual, and the increase of the duty will correspond to the increase in the town which gives a larger market for the goods supplied by the public house. Lastly, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that injustice is done in the case of municipal extensions. He quoted once more the case of Dewsbury, which was discussed the other day with some heat. Let me in the first place rebut the accusation of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have misled the House.
Mr. CAVE: I never intended to say that for a moment. I thought the Postmaster-General was himself misled, and that he was not aware of the facts.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, sir. I was aware of all the facts. I was aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) had mentioned this matter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made that clear in the remarks I addressed to the House on that occasion. The case that I was answering was this: The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a few words out of a speech of mine, and his case was that the town of Cambridge and the town of Birmingham, when their bounds were extended, ought to be

1603
treated in the same way as Dewsbury. I replied that after all it was with the publicans of Dewsbury that these representations originated, and that it was from them they emanated. They first raised the matter, and I said that what the publicans of Dewsbury had done could be done by the publicans of Cambridge or Birmingham, or any other town in precisely the same way. I was pointing out that no representations had come to us from any quarters on the same lines. Afterwards, gathering from a remark made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. W. R. Peel), that my words had been misinterpreted when he said, "We are assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Board of Education had nothing whatever to do with it," I, at once rose in my place, being unwilling to allow that misapprehension to go abroad, and realising that the words I had spoken might possibly be misinterpreted, and said: "I did not say so." I said that the representations were initiated by the publicans of Dewsbury. They naturally went to their Member of Parliament, as publicans in any place would do; and it is surely a strange doctrine to say that on a legislative matter, upon a question which involves the amendment of an Act of Parliament, the only people who were to be regarded as disfranchised, the only people who were not to be allowed to make representations through their Member, were those who are under the disability of being represented by one of the Members of the Government of the day. Surely that is an impossible position to take up. I hope I have made that clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a letter of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman), who it was said had approached the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as indeed it was his duty to do as a Member of Parliament. Members of Parliament on both sides of the House freely speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose reply was, in effect, this: If this is really a special and peculiar case, like the case of Stoke, it may be dealt with, but if it raises a large new principle, and will let in a great number of other towns, meaning a considerable sacrifice of Revenue, then I cannot undertake to make such an Amendment. That was precisely his view; that clearly was the meaning and intention of the language which was used by the right hon. Gentleman.
1604
The reason of differentiating the case of Stoke from other towns, and the reason why we made a special provision in the Bill of 1909 in the case of Stoke, was this. There you had a group of towns previously disunited, but which were to be brought into one whole. The effect of bringing them into one whole would be to raise the licence duties imposed upon the publicans of those towns by no less than £4,000 a year—£3,950, I think it is, to be precise. They came to us and said this provisional order for the unification of six towns of the Potteries was passed into law on 21st December, 1908, before the Budget Bill was introduced. It did not come into operation until 31st March, 1910, after the Budget had been introduced. They said to us, "If we had known that the effect of the unification was to impose upon us these very much heavier duties, then the whole question of the unification in the Potteries might have been very different. This has come upon us as a surprise. It introduces a new and strange element previously unforeseen in the whole question, which has been debated for years in those Pottery towns." And they appealed to the Government to make an exception in their ease, and asked to be treated as though they were separate boroughs. They supported their case by saying that Parliament has already realised that there are differences in our six towns, because they are allowed a differential system of rating which is to prevail for a period of twenty years.
After hearing those arguments, and it being represented that this was a special and peculiar case, the Government, anxious to avoid a hardship of that character, said, "We will accept the Amendment dealing with this particular case by allowing the same period for the differential public-house licence duty that was allowed for the differential rates of those boroughs." That was the case of Stoke. Then came the people of Dewsbury, who had not got nearly such a strong case, but one of a very similar character. Their Provisional Order was passed on 25th November, 1909, after the Budget was introduced, but it did not come into operation until the same day as the Stoke Order. As to the figures, their case is a little weaker, and, further, the increased burden imposed upon them is considerably smaller than £4,000. Nevertheless, the cases were so analogous, and we were informed that there were no representations from any other towns, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thinking that this would

1605
not raise any large new principle, accepted also the case of Dewsbury. So much objection was taken to it the other day that the Clause was withdrawn, and I undertook, while giving no pledge, to consider whether it would be possible to adopt any form of words that would deal with such a case. We have considered carefully, with the authorities of the Customs and Excise, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not possible in those cases, which vary so much, to draft any form of words which would do justice to all the cases which may arise in future; and, further, we should have to consider whether such words, if they were adopted, ought not to have retrospective validity. A large number of difficulties would therefore arise, which the Government confess, after full consideration, they have not been able adequately to meet, and, consequently, they cannot
present to the House a new form of general words that will deal with all the cases. The Government cannot accept the form of words suggested in the Clause moved by the hon. Member opposite, because it deals quite indiscriminately with a large number of different cases.
Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has left me no time to say anything except to offer him my sincerest congratulations on the fall of the gag.
And, it being Eight of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th March, proceeded to put forthwith the Question on the Motion already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 297.

Division No. 100.

AYES.

[8.4 p.m.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Astor, Waldorf

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Baird, John Lawrence

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Larmor, Sir J.

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

Fell, Arthur

Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

Balcarres, Lord

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Lee, Arthur Hamilton

Baldwin, Stanley

Finlay, Sir Robert

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

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

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fleming, Valentine

Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Forster, Henry William

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

Barnston, Harry

Gardner, Ernest

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

Macmaster, Donald

Bathust, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Gibbs, George Abraham

Magnus, Sir Philip

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gilmour, Captain John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Goldman, Charles Sydney

Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Goldsmith, Frank

Morpeth, Viscount

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

Beresford, Lord Charles

Grant, James Augustus

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

Bird, Alfred

Greene, Walter Raymond

Mount, William Arthur

Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith.

Gretton, John

Newdegate, F. A.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Newman, John R. P.

Boyton, James

Haddock, George Bahr

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Nield, Herbert

Bull, Sir William James

Harris, Henry Percy

Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Butchr, John George (York)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Campion, W. R.

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement L.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hills, John Waller (Durham)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Cator, John

Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

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

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Perkins, Walter Frank

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Peto, Basil Edward

Clive, Percy Archer

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

Clyde, James Avon

Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cooper, Richard Ashmole

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Courthope, George Loyd

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Quilter, William Eley C.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, F.)

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, R. F.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Rawlinsen, John Frederick Peel

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Ingleby, Holcombe

Rawson, Col. Richard H.

Craik, Sir Henry

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

Joynson-Hicks, William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Croft, Henry Page

Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Dairymple, Viscount

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Kerry, Earl of

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

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

Sanderson, Lancelot

Swift, Rigby

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Sykes, Alan John

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

Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wolmer, Viscount

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

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

Snowden, Philip

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Spear, John Ward

Touche, George Alexander

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Stanier, Beville

Valentia, Viscount

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

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Yate, Col. C. E.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Younger, George

Starkey, John Ralph

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Cave and Mr. Samuel Roberts

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Stewart, Gershom

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

NOES.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

John, Edward Thomas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dawes, James Arthur

Johnson, William

Adamson, William

Delany, William

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Addison, Dr. Christopher

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Devlin, Joseph

Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

Dickinson, W. H.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Agnew, Sir George William

Dillon, John

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Donelan, Captain A.

Jowett, Frederick William

Alden, Percy

Duffy, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Keating, Matthew

Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Kellaway, Frederick George

Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Armitage, Robert

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Kilbride, Denis

Aequith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

Lamb, Erneet Honry

Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

Elverston, Harold

Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Lansbury, George

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Essex, Richard Walter

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

Barnes, George N

Falconer, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

Fenwick, Charles

Logan, John William

Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barton, William

Ffrench, Peter

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Beale, William Phipson

Field, William

Lundon, Thomas

Beauchamp, Edward

Fitzgibbon, John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Beck, Arthur Cecil

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Bentham, George Jackson

France, Gerald Ashburner

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Bethell, Sir John Henry

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Maclean, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

Gill, Alfred Henry

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boland, John Plus

Glanville, Harold James

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Booth, Frederick Handel

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

M'Callum, John M.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Goldstone, Frank

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

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

Brace, William

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Brigg, Sir John

Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

Martin, Joseph

Brocklehurst, William B.

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

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Bryce, John Annan

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

Masterman, C. F. G

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gulland, John William

Meagher, Michael

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hackett, John

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

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

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Menzies, Sir Walter

Byles, William Pollard

Hancock, John George

Millar, James Duncan

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Molloy, Michael

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Chancellor, Henry George

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Mooney, John J.

Clancy, John Joseph

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

Morgan, George Hay

Clynes, John R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morrell, Philip

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Muldoon, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Munro, Robert

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hayward, Evan

Murray, Capt Hon. Arthur C.

Corbett, A Cameron (Glasgow)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Needham, Christopher T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Neilson, Francis

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Higham, John Sharp

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cowan, William Henry

Hinds, John

Nolan, Joseph

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Norman, Sir Henry

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Hodge, John

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Crooks, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Crumley, Patrick

Hudson, Walter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Donnell, Thomas

1608

1609

O'Grady, James

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Toulmin, George

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

Robinson, Sydney

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Malley, William

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Verney, Sir Harry

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Roche, John (Galway, E.)

Wadsworth, John

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Roe, Sir Thomas

Walters, John Tudor

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Rose, Sir Charles Day

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Rowlands, James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wardle, George J.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

St. Maur, Harold

Waring, Walter

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

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

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Watt, Henry A.

Pointer, Joseph

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Webb, H.

Pollard, Sir George H.

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

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sheehy, David

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shortt, Edward

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Whyte, A. F.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Wiles, Thomas

Pringle, William M. R.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Radford, George Heynes

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Summers, James Woolley

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

Reddy, Michael

Sutherland, John E.

Winfrey, Richard

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sutton, John E.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Tennant, Harold John

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. Howard.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Mr. SPEAKERthen proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at Eight of the Clock this day.

CLAUSE 2.—(Explanation and Amendment of Law as to Reversion Duty.)
(1) It is hereby declared that in relation to a lease which has determined the person in whom the lessor's interest was vested immediately before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, or if the lease has determined before that time, immediately before the transaction or event in consequence of which the lease has determined is the lessor for the purpose of Section fifteen of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act), and is the person to whom any benefit accrues from or by reason of the determination of the lease for the purpose of the other provisions of that Act relating to Reversion Duty.
(2) Where, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a lease of any land determines on the vesting of the lessor's interest and the lessee's interest in the same person before the expiration of the term for which the lease was granted, the amount of the Reversion Duty (if any) payable shall not be the full duty, but such an amount as would, with compound interest at the rate of four per centum per annum for the residue of the term for which the
1610
lease was granted, produce the amount of the full duty.
For the purposes of this provision the full duty means the duty (if any) which would have become payable if the lease had not determined until the expiration of the term for which it was granted, and if the total value of the land were at that time the same as it is when the lease actually determines.
(3) Sub-section (3) of Section fourteen of the principal Act shall cease to have effect and shall be deemed never to have had effect.
Amendment made: At end of Section (2) insert—
(3) No Reversion Duty shall be charged on the determination of any lease of land where the lease is determined in pursuance of an agreement between the lessor and the lessee for the acquisition by the lessee of the lessor's interest, if at the time of the determination of the lease—

(a) the lease has at least fifty years of its term to run; and

(b) the total value of the land does not exceed five hundred pounds.

(4) Where a lease of any land held upon trust for any body of persons is deter mined before the expiration of the term of the lease by the surrender thereof to the lessor upon the terms that he shall grant to those persons severally leases of

1611
various plots of land representing in the aggregate the whole of the land comprised in the original lease, for a term in each case equal to the unexpired term of the residue of the original lease, and at rents amounting in the aggregate to but not exceeding the rent reserved by the original lease, no Reversion Duty shall be payable on the determination of the lease.
Provided that the lessor shall in any case to which this provision applies deliver an account under Section fifteen of the principal Act in the same manner as if Reversion Duty were payable on the determination of the leave.—[Mr Hobhouse.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Annual Value for the purpose of Excise Licences.)
(2) In Ireland the annual value of any premises for the purpose of the duty on any Excise Licence charged by reference to annual value shall be determined by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in accordance with the Acts relating to Excise, but subject to the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section forty-three of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, and having regard in all cases to any decrease in the annual value resulting from any increase under the provisions of the principal Act in the Licence Duty.
Amendment made: After the word "Act" ["provisions of the principal Act"] insert the words "as amended, by this Act."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Sections 4, 25, and 27 of 1 & 2 Will.4. c. 32 not to apply to Live Game Birds in certain cases.)
Sections twenty-five and twenty-seven of the Game Act, 1831 (which relate to sales of game by and purchases of game from persons other than licensed dealers), and so much of Section four of the same Act, as makes it an offence for any person to buy or sell or have in his house, possession, or control game birds after the dates therein specified, shall not apply where the game is live game, and the person buying, selling, or having in his house, possession, or control the game, or the person from whom or by whom the game is bought or sold, is keeping or intending to keep the game solely for the purpose of breeding or for sale alive.
The amendments made by the section shall have effect in the Game Act, 1831, as applied by any subsequent enactment as well as in that Act as originally enacted.
Amendments made:
Leave out the words "Sections twenty-five and twenty-seven of the Ganie Act, 1831 (which relates to sales of game by and purchases of game from persons other than licensed dealers) and."
Leave out the words: "same Act" ["Section four of the same Act"] and insert instead thereof the words: "Gam Act, 1831."
Leave out the words "or the person from whom or by whom the game is bought or sold."
After the words "solely for the purpose of breeding or for sale alive," insert the words, "And either is licensed at the time to deal in game, or is a holder of a certificate or licence to kill game in force at the time."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to payment of Income Tax in any year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year.)
(1) Where in any Income Tax year any half-yearly or quarterly payments have been made on account of any dividend, interest, or other annual profits or gains, previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year, and Income Tax has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom, or has not been charged thereon or deducted therefrom at the rate ultimately charged for the said year, the amount not so charged or deducted shall be charged under Schedule D in respect of those payments as profits or gains not charged by virtue of any other schedule, in accordance with the provisions contained in the sixth case of Schedule D in Section one hundred of the Income Tax Act, 1842, and the agents entrusted with the payment of the dividends, interest, or other annual profits or gains shall furnish a list containing the names and addresses of the persons to whom payments have been made, and the amount of those payments, to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, upon a requisition made by the Commissioners in that behalf.
(2) Any person liable to pay any rent, interest, or annuity, or to make any other annual payment shall be authorised to make any deduction on account of Income Tax for any Income Tax year which he has failed to make previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax for that year, or to make up any deficiency in any such deduction which has been so made on the occasion of the next payment, of the rent, interest, or annuity, or making of the other

1613
annual payment after the passing of the Act so imposing the tax, in addition to any other deduction which he may be by law authorised to make, and shall also be entitled, if there is no future payment from which the deduction may be made, to recover the sum which might have been deducted as if it were a debt due from the person as against whom the deduction could originally have been made if the Act imposing Income Tax for the year had been in force.
(3) Any charge or deduction of Income Tax made during any Income Tax year previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax shall be deemed to be a legal charge or deduction so far as it does not exceed the charge or deduction which might have been made if the Act imposing the tax had been in force.
(4) In this Section the expression "Income Tax year "means the year beginning the sixth day of April.
Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (3).

PART V.
  PROVISIONS AS TO PAYMENTS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

    CLAUSE 10.(Repeal of s. 91 of 10 Edw. 7. c. 5.)
    Section ninety-one of the principal Act (which provides for the payment of half the proceeds of the duties on land values for the benefit of local authorities) shall be suspended in its operation as from the date of the principal Act until Parliament shall otherwise determine.
    Amendment made: At end insert the words, "but not beyond the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 194.

    Division No. 101.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Clynes, John R.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Gulland, John William

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Alden, Percy

    Cory, Sir Clifford John

    Hackett, John

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Cowan, William Henry

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hancock, John George

    Anderton, Andrew Macbeth

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Armitage, Robert

    Crooks, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Baker, Joseph Alien (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

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

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.)

    Celany, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barton, William

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Beale, William Phipson

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Beauchamp, Edward

    Dillon, John

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

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

    Duffy, William J.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hinds, John

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Hodge, John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Boland, John Pius

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Elverston, Harold

    Hudson, Walter

    Bewerman, Charles W.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)

    Brace, William

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Brigg, Sir John

    Falconer, James

    John, Edward Thomas

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Johnson, William

    Bryce, John Annan

    Ferens, Thomas Robinsor

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ffrench, Peter

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Field, William

    Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

    Byles, William Pollard

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Joyce, Michael

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gibson, Sir James Puckering

    Keating, Matthew

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

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Glanville, Harold James

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Kilbride, Denis

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Lamb, Ernest Henry

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

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

    Lambert, George (Deven, Molton)

    O'Malley, William

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lansbury, George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Snowden, Philip

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Logan, John William

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Summers, James Woolley

    Lundon, Thomas

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

    Sutherland, John E.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Sutton, John E

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Tennant, Harold John

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Maclean, Donald

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Toulmin, George

    M'Callum, John M.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wadsworth, John

    Martin, Joseph

    Radford, George Heynes

    Walters, John Tudor

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rainy, Adam Rolland

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Meagher, Michael

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Wardle, George J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Reddy, Michael

    Waring, Walter

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

    Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Menzles, Sir Walter

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Miliar, James Duncan

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Molloy, Michael

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Webb, H.

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

    Mooney, John J.

    Robinson, Sydney

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Morrell, Philip

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

    Munro, Robert

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Whyte, A. F

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

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wiles, Thomas

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Neilson, Francis

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    St. Maur, Harold

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Nolan, Joseph

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

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Sheehy, David

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Shortt, Edward

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

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    O'Grady, James

    NOES.

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

    Butcher, John George (York)

    Finlay, Sir Robert

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T C. R.

    Campion, W. R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Ashley, Wilfred W.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fleming, Valentine

    Astor, Waldorf

    Cator, John

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gardner, Ernest

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cave, George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Balcarres, Lord

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gilhooly, James

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clyde, James Avon

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Barnston, Harry

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

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

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Gretton, John

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Bird, Alfred

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

    Henderson, Major H (Berks, Abingdon)

    Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

    Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Boyton, James

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Bull, Sir William James

    Fell, Arthur

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

    Hope, Harry (Bute)

    1616

    1617

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Stanier, Beville

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Nield, Herbert

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Hunt, Rowland

    Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    O'Brien, William (Cork)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North).

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Swift, Rigby

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sykes, Alan John

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Kerry, Earl of

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

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

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Kirkwood, John H. M.

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

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

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Locker-Lampton, G. (Salisbury)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

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

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

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

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sanderson, Lancelot

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Younger, George

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.

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

    Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Spear, John Ward

    Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [20th March.]—REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Resolutions reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £926,300, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Half-Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,468,200, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Consideration of Resolutions postponed.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £395,500, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I beg to move to reduce the said sum by £100.
  I desire to move this reduction in order to raise a question of paramount importance to all Government employés. I do
  1618
  not want to weary the House, but I should like to enter into the whole details, and the different dates connected with this case, in order that the House may realise the state of affairs. On 26th October, 1909, the medical inspector under the Factory Acts certified that the house that a certain George Horn was working in in the dockyard was insanitary. He also certified that George Horn was suffering from lead poisoning. George Horn was treated for three weeks in the dockyard surgery for lead poisoning. On 16th November he was sent to Haslar Hospital, and on 12th December, a month afterwards, he died in the hospital. On 28th December the solicitor, who was employed out of certain funds, wrote to the Treasury asking that he might put the case in regard to this George Horn's widow getting certain compensation. On 30th December the solicitor received a letter from the Treasury stating that his letter had been sent to the Admiralty. On 13th and 24th January, and on 4th February, 1910, the solicitor wrote to the Admiralty asking for a reply to his letter to the Treasury. On 8th February he received a letter from the Admiralty in which it was stated:—
  "That the medical advisers of that Department, having given the ease their most careful consideration, are of the opinion that Horn's death was due to heart disease of long standing, and was not attributable to the service. We therefore regret that the widow's claim for compensation cannot be admitted."

  1619
  I want the House to pay attention to this letter, which was in face of the medical inspector under the Factory Acts, who had declared that Horn had suffered from lead poisoning, and had had the man in the dockyard surgery for three weeks treating him for that complaint. The solicitor wrote again to the Admiralty on 8th February with regard to that decision, giving further information of the case. To this letter he got no reply. He again wrote on 15th February, and asked for an immediate answer. On 4th March he received much the same answer to the effect that the decision of the Admiralty was based on the report of their medical advisers; that neither during Horn's illness nor by the post mortem examination were any other symptoms discovered, and the post mortem examination revealed a diseased heart of long standing, and of much earlier origin than the lead poisoning. Here again I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that this was in face of the medical inspector under the Factory Acts' opinion that the man had been treated for three weeks for lead poisoning. On 12th March the solicitor called the attention to this fact in a letter to the Admiralty, though this already had been communicated to them. On 11th April, the solicitor filed an application in the Portsmouth County Court. On 30th April, the Treasury filed an answer. I hope the House will excuse me giving these details, because I want to give the facts clearly before I produce my own opinion on the case. On 6th May, the solicitor was approached by the Treasury solicitor with a view to an agreement to adjourn the County Court case to 9th June. The reason that the Treasury solicitor gave was that the Admiralty were instituting an inquiry.
  One of the points I want to bring before the House is: Why did not the Admiralty, if there was a doubt about the matter, institute an inquiry before? The medical officer had given his opinion that the man was suffering from lead poisoning, and the Admiralty knew that the shed he had been working in was an insanitary shed. On 2nd June the solicitor received a letter from the Treasury solicitor, and in this letter the Treasury solicitor said that the claim was still being considered, but, he added, whatever decision was given by the County Court the Admiralty would consider that they had no jurisdiction in the case."
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Hear, hear.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Gentleman will interrupt me if I am making any mistake in the case. I want the thing to be perfectly clear, and I am certain he also wants it to be clear.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The dates do not quite coincide, but the variation is not material.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: On 1st June, five days before the case came before the County Court judge, the solicitor received another letter from the Treasury Solicitor, in which the latter gentleman stated:
  "I am now instructed On behalf of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to inform you that, after full consideration of the ease, they admit full liability for compensation."
  That was a sum of £266 2s. 2d. This was after the Admiralty inquiry had been ordered. What I want to point out is that the Admiralty inquiry ought to have been ordered directly there was a doubt thrown on the case by the medical opinion. On 6th June the solicitor for the case wrote to the Treasury saying that he would not consent to the withdrawal of the county court proceedings unless the Treasury paid the costs of his application. That in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the House, was only fair. Litigation was rendered quite unnecessary, and the action taken was amply justified by the result. On 16th June the county court judge gave judgment in favour of Mrs. Horn. From December, 1909, till July, 1910, Mrs. Horn never got one single penny, although this doubt had been thrown upon the case.
  On 12th July the Admiralty allowed Mrs. Horn 10s. a week as a gratuity. This was seven months after George Horn's death. On 26th November of last year Mrs. Horn received the first penny of the £266 2s. 2d., although her husband died on 12th December, 1909. I must say, and I expect hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me, that there has never been such an incredible state of meanness as the action of the Admiralty when they gave this compensation. What do you think they did? I believe it is of doubtful legality. But as I am not a lawyer I cannot say. They gave this £266, which, I maintain, they were forced to give to this poor woman, and they (the Admiralty) absolutely deducted £10 from the compensation for twenty weeks and the half-wages paid Mrs. Horn during the months

  1621
  Horn was at Haslar before he died. I ask the House if that is not incredibly mean?
  The facts of the case are shortly these: Horn worked in a confined place known to be insanitary, and which was several times reported as a place damaging to health. That statement is perfectly fair and just, and proved to be true, because the unfortunate man had lead poisoning. The medical officer of health for Ports mouth, as I have already said, reported it as lead poisoning. The point I want to raise here is that so far as the employés—I have not been able to calculate what the number is that come under this Act for contracting out, but they must be a considerable number, a hundred thou sand, or perhaps 150,000—and remember the Admiralty appealed, as they said they would, against the decision of the county court judge——
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No—against his jurisdiction!
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I beg your pardon, against the jurisdiction of the county court. That puts the employés in this position; no employé can ever again go to law at all, and that is a most important matter for the whole of the employés under the Government at the present moment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: He could not do so before.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Not before, if he had not contracted out. What the hon. Gentleman probably would say is the Admiralty settled this case and they are now going to turn it over to the Treasury. But my point is that no Department of the State, more particularly one that is to settle points for poor people who cannot defend themselves, should act in this manner. If this poor woman had not someone behind her to fight her case she would never get a red cent. The Treasury, I am sure, in ninety cases out of 100, or even a great deal more, would give a perfectly fair and just decision, but as in this case there may be great injustice done. How many more cases are there like that of Mrs. Horn, but who, having no one behind them to fight their case, never got a penny.
  The fault I find with the Admiralty is for not having appointed a committee directly that there was a doubt raised. They waited all this time, and kept this woman out of her money, and then they
  1622
  subtracted the 10s. a week and the month's half-pay that she got. The wording of the estimate is that the compensation is only for injury. There is nothing as to death. This was a case of the death of a workman employed in an insanitary place, and the widow was not allowed any compensation, although the medical inspector reported the place was insanitary. As far as this case goes the Admiralty have not a leg to stand on. I claim that Gentlemen sitting on the Labour benches must back me up in this matter, even if we go to a Division. They must not do now what they did when I supported an Amendment of theirs on the Address last year. When it came to the point they walked out or voted against me, as my fellow-countrymen here did to-night in the case of their own tobacco growing. I claim that the Labour Members must support me now and bring this matter to a decision. Let them not be talked over by the Admiralty. The Admiralty are very clever. Perhaps they will climb down, but here we are fighting a question which may concern a lot of people who are not able to fight for themselves. The Treasury settles cases to the best of its ability, but they may be misled, and there should be some referee at the Department to adjudicate on matters of this character, and no great Department like the Treasury' should be permitted to adjudicate upon it themselves.
  I am sorry the First Lord of the Admiralty is not here, because I have a few words to say to him. I would point out that this case shows that the statement he made the other day was right. He claimed that if any document was sent to him by any member of the Board and he approved of it that it was approved by the Admiralty. I say that was a most preposterous and arrogant statement. I should like to hear what the Sea Lords would say to it. This appears to me to be a sort of arrogant domination which is being carried on, and I should like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty to say that this statement was absolutely incorrect. He will say perhaps he cannot go against his Chief, and of course that is very loyal and very proper discipline, but he must say something about it or I shall have to question him again. The statement was inaccurate, and it looks as if that statement had something to do with the case of George Horn, as it had to do with the case of Archer-Shee, which we shall bring up this day week. I am sure the House will sympathise with me in trying to stop further

  1623
  cases which would put poor women in the position in which this poor woman was put for seven months without a penny, and nearly a year without getting the compensation to which she was entitled, and which in the interests of fair play she should get.
  Mr. BERTRAM G. FALLE: I rise to second the Amendment of my Noble and gallant Friend. He has gone into the question very fully, but there were one or two points he omitted. I want to point out that the medical inspector visited this shed in which George Horn was working, and although the medical inspector was not called in to see him, he immediately "spotted" him, if I may use the expression, as a subject of chronic plumbism or lead poisoning. And he said I will have that man reported to the Fleet Surgeon, and then he told the man to come to his house and he would examine him. He did examine him, and he found he was suffering from albuminuria hypertrophy of the heart and inability to use the extensor muscles of his fore-arm. These are the most typical characteristics in lead poisoning, so there was no excuse whatever on the part of the Government. After they had this report, and they ought to have immediately inquired into the matter. I want also to take another line. I am afraid it is almost impossible to shame a Public Department; but we may be able to touch the consciences of the occupants of the Treasury Bench. I have no doubt that the Secretary to the Admiralty is as tender-hearted as any of us, and I make my appeal to him. My object is not to injure the Government of which he is a most courteous Member. I want to see that justice and fairplay is done to this poor woman, who has been most hardly used. When she was left a widow she had seven children and the eldest was only fourteen years of age. She had no wages at all to provide for herself and her family. That should have moved a heart of stone, and had it been the heart of the hon. Gentleman opposite no doubt it would have been moved, but it was the heart of the Department. It is impossible to deny that in this case there was a certain amount of bungling and the bungling was on the part of the Admiralty. It was my good fortune to see the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I brought this matter before his notice. Speaking as a member of the profession to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, I told him that this
  1624
  widow had a good case against him, but he preferred his own authorities, and the case had to proceed to the Law Courts. As the House knows, at first the Admiralty declined to pay any compensation.
  Finally the case went into court, and the Admiralty decided to pay compensation, and at the last moment a telegram was sent to the solicitor saying that the Admiralty would pay reasonable costs. That telegram was never confirmed, and there is no lawyer in the country who would accept an unconfirmed telegram simply saying that reasonable costs would be paid. I have the honour to belong to that great profession, although I do not follow the lead of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not wish to be the bird that fouls its own nest, but I must say that I have never heard the word "reasonable" used in regard to costs. There are tax costs between solicitor and client, but reasonable costs in a telegram might give a solicitor a hint that it was a bogus telegram, and had the verdict gone against the solicitor he would have had no grounds whatever for complaint. The Admiralty have now got the matter settled by the Court of Appeal, and that will remain until we can get a change in the law. That is a great gain for injustice, and it is a great gain from the point of view the Admiralty took. I do not think, however, that it is an attitude which a great Department should take. Now they have won their case and they cannot be disturbed again until the law is altered. I think it would be a graceful act and fair and just on the part of a great Department to pay the costs for this poor woman. She has no means of her own, and it is very unfair to ask her to pay the residue of the costs out of the compensation which has been given to her for what is very little more than the slow murder of her husband in that shop. That workshop was unfit for people to work in. The husband of this woman had spent all his time in soldering ammunition cases. He was there eight years, and he was being slowly murdered. The costs amounted to £95, a very small sum it seems to me, and as in this case the Government are strong, it is the duty of their department to be merciful.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to say a word upon this subject. I understand this man has been for eight years in a shed or workshop under conditions where it was quite possible for him to become inocculated with the fumes of lead and suffer from ill-health from the result of lead poisoning.

  1625
  I understand that at the end of a certain time he was certified as suffering from lead poisoning, and he went into the hospital for three weeks. I believe the Admiralty paid half-wages, or about 10s. a week, while he was lying aside in the hospital, between the time of being certified as suffering from lead poisoning up to the time of his death. There is no dispute about that. A post-mortem takes place, and the Admiralty, on the advice of their medical adviser, decided that this is a case of long-standing disease of the heart. To novices this decision would seem to exclude the possibility of lead poisoning having any connection whatever with his death. I happen to have been a member of the Lead Committee which inquired into the lead poisoning question. For some two years we were engaged in listening to expert evidence upon this question, medical and otherwise, in order that we might get some information as to the cause of this disease.
  I think it is understood that lead poisoning can be gradually acquired over an enormous number of years, and that lead taken into the system in small doses, as it would be in this case, is more insidious and deadly than if taken in larger quantities at any given time just before the real attack of lead poisoning. In addition, it is well known—and no medical expert would attempt to deny it—that these small doses of lead taken into the system over a number of years produce disease of the kidneys and disease of the heart. It is taken in almost all the cases tried in the Potteries—as was proved in the cases brought before the Lead Commission which is inquiring into this question—as a sign of lead poisoning if there happened to be disease of the heart or disease of the kidneys. The very fact of the Admiralty's doctor and the medical evidence at the post mortem declaring this was a case of long standing disease of the heart, bears out the evidence of witnesses given before our Committee that lead taken into the system in small doses sets up disease of the kidneys and disease of the heart, and that lead taken into the system in this way leads to more terrible results than in the case where it is taken into the system in larger doses, in which case the persons affected are often laid aside only temporarily and may easily recover. Recovery is almost impossible when the system is impregnated in the way suggested by the statement of the Noble
  1626
  Lord. It must have been a very elementary medical inquiry which the Admiralty held in this case at the time of the man's death for it to have been suggested that disease of the heart could not have had anything to do with lead poisoning. That, I understand, is one of the symptoms for which doctors holding post mortem examinations in the Potteries always look. If a man has worked in lead, and he is found to have had disease of the kidneys or heart the doctors decide at once that his death was due to lead poisoning. The ground on which it is suggested the Admiralty did not recognise this claim is therefore the very ground on which claims made in my Constituency are substantiated. There is unquestionably room for some inquiry as to what kind of information was presented to the Board of Admiralty, and what kind of advice they got which led them to the conclusion that a man suffering from disease of the heart could not necessarily have been the result of lead poisoning. No matter how the doctors differed as to whether leadless glaze should be used, there was no difference among those who appeared before the Commission upon the fact that one of the elements in deciding whether death was the result of lead poisoning was disease of the kidneys and the heart. It is most astonishing that the Admiralty should have taken that as evidence that they were not liable to pay compensation.
  There are other elements in the case which are equally peculiar. I can understand that, having got all the advice they could upon the subject, and having decided there was no case for a claim for compensation, they were entitled to resist the claim to the very best of their ability, but it is clear that when they got to the point of having it put to the issue they were afraid of the advice they had got, for they made a further investigation, came to the conclusion the advice was unreliable, and decided to meet the claim. There are one or two things connected with this case which do not, after all, show the Admiralty in a very good light as employers of labour. I understand there was some seven months between the death of the man and any payment to the widow. I do not know what kind of contracting out arrangement the Board of Admiralty has with its workmen. I do not know how far they force or compel men to contract out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It is entirely voluntary.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Whatever it is, it does not seem to me to be fair. First of all, you compel a man to contract out.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We do not.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Well, never mind how it comes about. I know something of this voluntary business. I have had some of it in other businesses. Schemes are drafted by firms, and leaders of gangs in the shops and so on decide to contract out, and the man who does not go with the mob is in rather a peculiar position. I know that is so so far as private firms are concerned, and I do not know whether there is any difference under the Admiralty. I daresay it amounts to very much the same thing. It is surprising that, when there is a dispute whether a man's relatives are entitled to compensation the Admiralty should say they are the people absolutely to decide, and that there should be no appeal from them to the courts of the country. I should imagine that is an astounding proposition to make. If the dockyard workmen all over the country are to understand they are to submit absolutely and entirely to the decision of the Board of Admiralty——
  Dr. MACNAMARA: And the Treasury.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: It does not matter who it is. The man who wants his money does not distinguish between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury. He only knows the Board of Admiralty employ him, and refuse to pay. He does not inquire whether it is due to the failure of negotiations between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury. He does not trouble anything about that. If these men are first of all asked whether they will contract out and then, when they agree, there is no provision whatever made for submitting disputed points with reference to their right to claim compensation to some independent tribunal, as I understand there is not, then it is a moral certainty that the proper advice to be given to them is to renounce this agreement at once if the Board of Admiralty will allow them. It is a thousand times better to be at the tender mercies of the law, however peculiarly it is sometimes administered, than to be at the tender mercies of the Board of Admiralty. Of the two, the courts will clearly give the workmen greater protection than the Board of Admiralty is likely to do. If this were the only case in which hardship
  1628
  had been done and in which the rules and regulations had been interpreted against a workman's claim by the Admiralty, I should have nothing to say about it. I should say it was an isolated case in which there were points of difference between the Admiralty and the workman, and that, although they had not taken all the facts into consideration at first, they did eventually do something to try and put matters right; but I am doubtful whether it does not represent a real old-fashioned policy of the Board and a tendency to interpret laws and regulations against the bottom dog. If it were an isolated case, I can see an excuse for the Admiralty up to a certain point, but it seems to me to be part of a policy that, if there are any points of difference, they should always be decided against the workman. The Noble Lord has a right to ask for some thing in this matter. I understand that the Admiralty have now paid £260 to this woman, and have admitted her claim that far. It becomes a question of the solicitor's costs. The widow having been forced to employ legal assistance because of the failure of the Admiralty to recognise her claim, I think the Board should do the handsome thing in this matter. The Financial Secretary may take it from me, how ever he may try to get out of it, that the solicitor will get his costs. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke a few moments ago said he doubted the telegram from the legal adviser of the Treasury be cause in connection with costs it mentioned the term "reasonable," and he added that no lawyer would ever think of mentioning that word in connection with costs. At any rate, in my opinion, that was absolutely sufficient evidence for thinking the telegram a forgery. Whenever I have had anything to do with law costs reason has never entered into the question. One is asked to pay a certain amount and has to pay it, whether it is reasonable or not. That is the situation as it stands now. The Admiralty has gone a certain stage to wards as it were effacing an injustice; they have admitted that the woman is entitled to a certain sum although they refuse to pay the whole of the costs of the solicitor——
  Mr. FALLE: They will pay none of the costs.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: That is worse than ever, for it means that a great slice of the compensation to which this woman is entitled is going to be taken from her in payment of solicitor's costs which were im-

  1629
  posed upon her by a lack of foresight on the part of the medical advisers of the Board of Admiralty. Under these circumstances, whatever my Friends may do in this Division—I am not going to play the Opposition game—unless there is some reasonable explanation on some of these points which one cannot gather, even taking an impartial view of the statements that have been made by the Noble Lord and by the hon. Member who seconded his Motion, unless there are some reasonable excuses for the conduct of the Admiralty relating to this question, most certainly I shall vote for the reduction of the Estimate.
  Mr. HOHLER: The matter before the House is one of very great importance. I shall never rest content until I get rid of this scheme. I have given great consideration to it, and I cannot understand how the Registrar ever allowed it to be registered. The Act provides that the scale of compensation to which workmen are entitled under a scheme shall be not less favourable than that which the scheme itself provides. You cannot register a scheme which is less favourable in regard to compensation than that provided for by the Act. The Act provides that in the ease of injury, either permanent or partial, to a workman, he shall obtain half his Mages. Let us turn to the scheme. You will find it provided in Clause 9 that if a man is totally incapacitated he is to be entitled to 24–60ths; if his ability is seriously impaired he is only to get 24–60ths; if it is moderately impaired only 12–60ths; and if slightly impaired but 6–60ths. Suppose the man's wages are £1 a week. Under this scheme, instead of getting not less than 10s. a week, as he would under the Act, he is only to have 8s. In the same way in the other cases mentioned, whereas the county court judge, as arbitrator, has power to award up to one-half of the wages under the scheme, there is a descending scale beginning from 8s. down to 6s., 4s., and 2s. Therefore the scheme only gives 2s. where the county court judge may give 10s. This scheme ought never to have been registered. It is a great injustice to working men, and I fail to understand why it was passed by the Registrar. In the case of death it is provided by the Act that compensation to the amount of £300 shall be given, and, as the House is probably aware, where a man leaves persons wholly dependent, the dependents are necessarily entitled to the full amount. If he leaves them partially dependent the county court judge, as arbi-
  1630
  trator, may give anything up to £300. But under this scheme, if the deceased man leaves persons partially dependent they can only get one-half of the £300. There, again, the scheme is entirely unfair to working men. That does not exhaust the comments I have to make in regard to it.
  I drew attention to a case the other night to illustrate its injustice. I desire to say, in regard to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, that whatever other people may say of him, in this matter I have had the most sympathetic treatment at his hands. I honestly believe his only fault in life is that he is not sitting on these benches. Therefore what I say must not be taken as in any way reflecting upon his desire to administer this scheme properly. But there is another injustice which has been the subject of correspondence between us. Take the case of a young fellow who has just completed his apprenticeship. We will say, for the sake of argument, that he has been earning 10s. or 12s. a week. At the conclusion of his articles he becomes a skilled fitter or mechanic. Under the Act, according to a decision of the Court of Appeal, he is entitled, if he meets with an accident immediately after becoming a skilled mechanic, to one-half of the wages he is earning on that grade. But under this scheme, if the same facts exist, instead of being entitled to one-half of what he earns in his new grade, he is only entitled to half his average wages for the previous twelve months, and, instead of getting, say, the half of 30s., he will receive perhaps 10s., or less, under this scheme.
  I maintain that we want to get rid, root and branch, of this scheme. I know of no-self-respecting man who would consent to act as arbitrator of his own case. He would say, "I am not fitted to do it, however much I may desire to do justice. If there is a dispute between us the aid of a third party must be invoked." Here are the workmen suffering from a double disability. First of all they have got to pass the Admiralty, and supposing the Admiralty are in favour of a particular workman, and I do not think it is an unjust supposition to them to say that they sometimes are, he has then got to pass the Treasury, and there is a double adjudication on his case. The Treasury do not like their finances dealt with, and the Treasury send the case down and I have known cases in which I have had the support of the Admiralty and the difficulty has been elsewhere, and I have had to carry my facts there.

  1631
  I say that this scheme is entirely unjust and improper, and I can see no benefit in it to the workmen at all. The only benefit which it can be suggested they obtain is this, that the man gets free medical attendance. I advised the workmen strongly that it is no benefit to them to receive that for two reasons. First of all, the individual workman does not get an independent opinion in the case of continued illness. I am not casting any aspersion on the medical officers employed, but the ground I take is, that he has only got their opinion and he wants outside opinion. I have had cases in which the opinions of the doctors diametrically differed, and I must say that I preferred the opinion of my doctor, who seemed to be accurate according to common sense to those of the Admiralty doctors, but what I want is some tribunal before whom these cases can be put and adjudicated upon. I want a legal tribunal, naturally because I am a lawyer, and in our profession we listen to what a doctor says, and if we do not consider it is common sense, we ignore it. In regard to the benefits which the men get, there is another point which arises. Almost eighty per cent. of these men are all prudent thrifty men, and you will almost invariably find that they are insured in some benefit society and they get free medical attendance. What do they want more? And I say it is better for them to be outside the scheme and get rid of it, so that they should have an independent tribunal who should decide this matter, evidence being given on both sides. The case of Mrs. Horn is an interesting case; thanks to her good friends, she has carried it successfully through, subject to this question of costs, and I cannot doubt that the Admiralty will deal reasonably and generously with them, because they were expended for a proper purpose, and, although the courts are against the right to take the question into a court of law, yet in my judgment the question might as well have been decided the other way.
  However that may be, I pass from that case, and I want to show how really important this is, and when an hon. Member says that we want to serve a party purpose I can only say that, speaking for myself and the junior Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Falle), the idea we had at heart was the interest of the men. We want this Act properly and fairly administered, and we have indeed, we think as deeply at heart, the welfore of the working classes as hon. Members opposite,
  1632
  though we show it in different ways. I want to point out really what injustice may be worked under this scheme. I have had a great number of these cases, and I have a great number still, and some of them have been cases of rupture. The men have been ruptured in the Government employ, and I would appeal to hon. Members to say whether that does or does not seriously impair a man's working capacity. I should have thought it was undoubted. I know—and I do not think I am saying anything which is any way a breach of confidence—I am supported by the Admiralty in my contention, but, unfortunately, I had to fight the Treasury—ultimately I had to fight the Treasury, and I was successful. I want to point out, however, how dangerous the schemes are where you appoint a person who is asked to be an arbitrator in his own case. I have in my hand an Order issued by the Admiralty on 3rd February, 1909. It is dated from Chatham, and says:—
  "I am to acquaint you that with reference to Article 4694 of the Home Dockyard Regulations, the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have notified that they will no longer grant compensation for rupture where the person's discharge is due to another cause, and where rupture is capable of being well controlled by truss, with consequently no appreciable diminution of earning capacity. The regulation will therefore remain in full force."
  Let us take the case of a man at sixty. At sixty he is cast out automatically into the market. What is the value of a man at sixty with a rupture controlled by a truss? I put in a claim for compensation on behalf of a man in that position, but what chance had I got with the Admiralty, and even if I got over the Admiralty, with the Treasury with that letter in the background? I have, however, succeeded in that case, and the Treasury have yielded, and I want to give them every credit. I did press the case upon the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he gave way, and the man was compensated, but what I want to point out is, that I do not think that it was unadvantageous to that man that I had his case in hand, because these men when they represent themselves do not understand the law as we do who charge for knowing it. I happen to be a lawyer, and I was very glad to help the man, but I want to point out that if you have orders in the background such as these, it is a very serious thing indeed for the men. I have a case in my hand and there are cases still before the Board of Admiralty. Take the case of Ethelbert Figge, he was a man who met with an injury prior to 1909, some considerable time before, two or three years. He fell into

  1633
  a caisson, and was taken out more dead than alive. That fall has injured his left arm, and for ligaments he has got leather. I have seen it myself, and what the man tells me I do not doubt. He has four or five children. He has not been able to work since. Of course, if you got some charitable person who would employ him to carry things with his right hand, he could get work, but that is not earning capacity. He was a man earning 30s. 10d. a week, and he was dealt with on the basis that he had never received more, and in his case his ability to work was reported as being "only materially impaired." Did you ever hear of such a thing? That man has only been receiving 9s. 3d. a week and his wages were £1 10s. 10d. If there is a County Court judge in this country who, as arbitrator, would not have awarded him his full half wages for the whole period I do not know that judge. I have no hesitation in saying that man suffered a great injustice. I do not want to prejudice the case because it is before the Admiralty now, and they will no doubt deal fairly and properly with it, and will give the arrears of compensation to which I claim this man is entitled. I have an independent medical certificate given this year in which his own doctor certifies that the whole of the left side is affected, the left hand and arm being quite useless, and paralysis having set in. If the case had been disputed by a private employer, and I could put the case into a Court of Law, he would have got his 15s. a week for the whole period, and the employer would have had to pay.
  These are not isolated cases. There are several of them. There is the case of a man named Lunn still under adjudication. Lunn met with an injury to his head, and there is great anxiety for what his future mental condition may be. The case is greatly disputed, but that case does not rest alone. I have the case of a boy named T. C. Philpott, about which I have written to the Admiralty. I draw attention to this case to show that this matter is one of grave importance, and that we ought in this way to get an undertaking that this scheme shall be abolished, and that there shall be a new scheme upon a basis which shall be approved, and shall be fair to the workman. We ought to get rid of it to-night. This is a case to my mind that indicates the real difficulty under which the working classes labour in regard to these matters. The accident happened in 1903. He was at that time an
  1634
  apprentice, having passed an examination for the dockyard. He was working, I think, in a dry dock and fell some fourteen feet, pitching on his head. He was picked up unconscious and remained at home a fortnight. He resumed work, being told he might by the doctors, but he continued to complain of headache, and early in 1904, within a year of the accident, he had a fit. He was a perfectly healthy boy, and had never had a day's illness in his life at all. The fits continued, and in 1904, the attention of the people in the yard having been drawn to it, he was put on other work, so that if he did fall in a fit he might not be killed. Ultimately, in August, 1904, they cancelled his indentures. I have not a doubt in my mind that that boy's present condition is solely due to the injury, and he has been wholly unable to recover a halfpenny of compensation. He has had fits and is now in an asylum, and his father has to pay for his maintenance there so far as he can afford. I have copies of the medical certificates of two doctors certifying that in their opinion his present condition is caused by the injury to his head. I have a letter that the boy's father wrote to Rear-Admiral Craigie, Admiral Superintendent of His Majesty's Dockyard at Chatham. It is not dated, but it was written in 1903. It is an admirable and most courteous letter. Some correspondence took place, and ultimately, on 5th June, 1906, the Admiralty wrote as follows:—
  "Sir,—In reply to your letter of 15th March last respecting the case of T. C. Philpott, late shipwright in His Majesty's Dockyard. Chatham, who was injured on duty on 14th April, 1913, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to acquaint you that, as his present condition cannot be medically certified to be due to the service, and there is no evidence that the injury to his head was sustained on duty, your claim for compensation cannot be entertained."
  The fellow who wrote that must have been a wag. He must have supposed, because the unfortunate fellow fell and pitched on his head, that while falling he was not doing his duty. I cannot understand it, but that is the answer we got. It is a most startling case. The matter has now been brought to my attention, and I have it before the Admiralty, and I have no doubt I shall get justice done. It may be there will be a bit of a struggle with the Treasury, but I mean to carry it on until I get this case through. I am not in any way condemning the Admiralty, but I am condemning the system. This scheme is all wrong. It is not for the benefit of the workmen. It is against the elementary principles of justice that a man should be a judge in his own case. It is

  1635
  wrong because the Registrar ought never to have certified it. The compensation is not as reasonable under the scheme as it is outside, and these cases ought not to have arisen. I know the Financial Secretary is aware that when I first had the honour to become the representative of Chatham there was the case of a man named Albert Gray. For four years, I believe, through the late Member, Mr. Jenkins, he had been urging his case, but he saw it was quite useless, and that he would get nothing, but ultimately I fought it through and got him compensation. The man had actually got the tendons of the left arm severed and had lost two fingers and was ruptured, and yet they told him he was not entitled to compensation. They had to give way. They could not do otherwise. I use these facts, I know they are true, as being the strongest evidence that this scheme is deserving of the condemnation of the House and that we should get rid of it at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: I consider that the Noble Lord in raising this question has done workmen a distinct service, and I hope, after the speeches which have been delivered, the Admiralty may see their way to reconsider the whole of this scheme. It appears to me that the Admiralty under this scheme is in the position of not only being the employer, but, in cases where compensation have to be considered, they are judge, jury, counsel, and everybody concerned in the matter. There have been cases where men with responsibilities in the way of wives and children have been offered the magnificent sum of 3s. 9d. per week, and, after an appeal and a certain amount of friendly pressure, that amount was raised, I think, to 6s. 9d. The main point I would like to raise is this. In laying down a scheme of this kind it is understood that the workmen suffer no disability from the point of view of compensation. In other words, that the scheme of benefits is not inferior to those which he will obtain by an ordinary appeal to the Law Courts. I understand the way of getting at the feeling of the men before they contract out of the Act and accept a scheme of this kind is by means of a ballot. I think in this particular case no ballot of the men was taken. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not the last time."] The hon. Gentleman says: "Not the last time." If I understand the position aright, it means that when a workman applies at the gate for employment,
  1636
  and is handed a copy of this scheme, he is advised to take it home and consider it. If he makes no comment upon the scheme, it is assumed that he is favourable to its acceptance. I want to emphasise the point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am afraid that, as a consequence of any opposition on his part—I do not say it would be—and of his saying: "I object to this scheme," he would not find employment. All I can say is that, in the case of a man applying to a private employer, that would be the direct result of a man's opposition to a scheme. I think the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty must have been influenced in the direction that some consideration is necessary in regard to the scheme itself with a view to its being either reconstituted or abolished in favour of the ordinary course. I wish to know what steps the Registrar took in this case to ascertain the opinion of the men before the scheme was accepted. I have been informed that a ballot was not taken.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No ballot was taken.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: If that be so, it goes a long way towards invalidating the scheme. I do not speak as a lawyer, but as one having a small measure of common sense, that appeals to me very strongly. If the Registrar did not take proper steps as laid down by the Act of Parliament to ascertain the opinion of the workmen, I think that goes a long way towards invalidating the scheme. The scheme does not admit of an appeal to anyone but the employer. That surely is not justice. It seems to me to be a violation of the elementary principles of justice, that an employer is to be the judge whether compensation is to be paid or not, and also whether there has been an accident, and what have been the extent and nature of the accident. I hope the Admiralty will see their way to remove the scheme, and let the men take their chance like workmen outside of appealing to the employer, and, failing a satisfactory arrangement in that way of appealing to a court of justice. I feel strongly that this scheme is not fair, is not justified by the Act, and I am very doubtful whether, in the face of the laches I have referred to, it is binding on the workmen in the docks.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I make no manner of complaint that this matter should have been raised, nor do I complain of the manner generally speaking in which it has

  1637
  been raised. We all desire to treat our employés with consideration and fairness. The hon. and gallant Member opposite (Lord C. Beresford) will agree that that is our purpose, and, generally speaking, I am quite certain that we succeed, because even my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) has said again and again that cases which he has raised have been attended to. I think I may take it that we treat our employés fairly and considerately. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. J. Ward) was so good as to say that we always interpret the law against what he called the bottom dog. If the hon. Member had been here I would have reminded him that his memory must be rather short, because he has evidence to the contrary. That is not our way of interpreting matters affecting the well-being of the working classes of which he is a sincere advocate. Let me say a word in regard to the scheme and the alternative, the Workmen's Compensation Act. I doubt whether the hon. Member would carry any appreciable number of the dockyard workers with him in what he proposes. When the first Workmen's Compensation Act came into operation in 1898, we had in existence a scheme of hurt pay and compensation for dependants.
  I have looked into the scheme which existed anterior to the first Workmen's Compensation Act, and I can certainly say that the conditions were at least as favourable as the Act which came into operation in 1898. At that point the Treasury thought that advantage might be taken of Clause 3 of the Act which admitted workmen to contract out. There was no compulsion. The hon. Member for Stoke is wrong if he suggests that the men were compelled to contract out. Nothing could be further from the fact. I have many times heard men in support of their petitions, and I am quite certain that any man who knows them knows that they are not liable to compulsion of that sort. The hon. Member says that if there was not some sort of implied compulsion and if they were absolutely voluntary agents the men would denounce this scheme. I do not think so. The scheme provides that any workman who wishes to withdraw from it may do so at any time. When the alternative was put to them, a great majority of them elected to come under the scheme. As to the methods of taking their views, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Bowerman) that they signed a contract which I have in my hand. A ballot in recent times has
  1638
  not been taken. I will take note of the complaint that we are not acting in accordance with what is required as to taking a ballot. If our form of taking the men's views as to whether they would accept the Act or contract out of it imposes any sort of hardship, or inflicts any injustice, I shall take care on my own responsibility to see that the charge shall no longer be possible. As to the scheme, it must be remembered that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has to be satisfied. The Chief Registrar certified that this scheme of compensation is not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906.
  Mr. HOHLER: That is a very just observation. But I contend that the scheme was never argued.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The workmen know their own interests, and knowing that this scheme has been certified by the Registrar as not less favourable, they elect to contract out of the Act. The hon. Gentleman cannot explain why these workmen should use their intelligence in favour of a scheme like this, whereas if they wished to act otherwise they could come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I will tell him why. Under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, a man would get no hurt pay unless his disablement was at least a fortnight. Our scheme has always provided that the man will get hurt money from the date of injury. In my humble judgment that is mainly why, in the first instance, the men practically unanimously adopted it.
  Mr. HOHLER: May I point out that this applies to the year 1907, and that the new Act of 1906 had then come into force, and under that Act if a man were injured for more than a week he got hurt pay.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am coming to that. I am going to state the case fully.
  The first scheme expired on 30th June, 1905, and was replaced by another scheme, and recertified by the Chief Registrar as not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the Workmen's Compensation Act. The scheme came into operation on 1st July, 1905, and on that occasion, when our scheme was recertified thirty-one men rejected it, and some 39,000 accepted it as a better alternative than the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will challenge me and say that I can put such compulsion

  1639
  upon 39,000 men as that they, against their own better judgment, and their own interests, agree to contract out, and that only thirty-one have the independence to say, despite this pressure put upon them, that they are going to stand out and go in for the Workmen's Compensation Act. I really cannot imagine that that is the case. The Act of 1906 did undoubtedly treat more generously the question of hurt pay in cases of disablement, and reduced the fortnight to a week.
  Mr. HOHLER: And from the first day out exceeding a fortnight.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: But our scheme still gave the men hurt pay from the date of injury, and was again preferable under this head of hurt pay to the Workmen's Compensation Act even of 1906. A new scheme came into force on 1st January, 1908. Seventeen men rejected our scheme, and about 38,000 agreed to go under it as a better alternative, as they thought. After all, the proof of the pudding sometimes is in the eating, and as a mere commonsense person anxious to do his best, I should have thought that those figures were eloquent, that on the whole the men think the scheme better than the Act. What are the principal points against the scheme? The first is that made by my hon Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie), the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford), last Monday week when discussing it at a late hour. That is the demand for an outside tribunal of independent appeal. I believe I have rightly interpreted the general criticism, to all which I have listened with great interest, when I say that that is the first point. I may be allowed to offer a comment or two upon that. It must be remembered in regard to this scheme as an alternative to the Compensation Act, to which the workmen can revert if they wish, that the fact that it has been in the control of the Admiralty, assisted by the Treasury, has always been within the knowledge of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. Each case is dealt with in the first place by the Admiralty. I shall be prepared to admit in a moment that in the case of the late Mr. Horn, there undoubtedly the case did rest for the time being, and I shall be prepared to make admissions upon that when I come to it. But now it has been provided that in the future, if there is the slightest doubt in
  1640
  the evidence tendered to the Admiralty, they will not themselves settle it offhand, but will refer it to the Treasury, which can and does in any doubtful case call to its help its own medical referee. [An HON. MEMBER: "That will not do."] What I am trying to show is the modification recently made, that in any case of doubt the Admiralty would refer to the Treasury, which can and does call in its medical referee. It is always open to the workman, under this scheme, to complain if he thinks that the scheme is being administered unfairly.
  Mr. HOHLER: No, that is not so.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That was my information. I will look up that point again.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: In that case, does it mean that the workman can refer to the Registrar in the case of the Admiralty settling it as well as in the case of the Treasury settling it under the new scheme?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am proposing a new practice and not a new scheme. The Admiralty will not settle it themselves if there is any question of doubt, but will at once refer it to the Treasury, and then only the men can complain to the Registrar if they consider that the scheme has not been fairly administered.
  Mr. HOHLER: No.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I used the words "fairly administered." If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Act, Section 3, Subsection (4), he will see if complaint is made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies by or on behalf of the workman, and so on, as to the provisions of the scheme being violated or that the scheme has not been fairly administered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read on and see what remedy the workman gets."] I may be allowed to take my case my own way. I was coming to that. I said that the workman might complain to the Chief Registrar if he was of opinion it was not being fairly administered, and the Chief Registrar is bound to investigate the claim. I would like to say that, though there have been such complaints, I am very glad to say there has been no such complaint made recently to the Chief Registrar. I quite admit that the Chief Registrar could not impose his views upon the Treasury, but he has a moral power in regard to these matters, in respect of his sanctioning a scheme, and I should think the Treasury would give considerable

  1641
  weight to any serious comment made by him as to any scheme submitted as an alternative to the Workmen's Compensation Act. In regard to the general demand for an independent tribunal of appeal it has been ascertained by the Chief Registrar that out of thirty or forty schemes certified by him under the Act of 1906, those of a non-contributory nature, so far as can be traced, do not make any provision for outside arbitration. I would point out that of all these thirty or forty schemes certified by the Chief Registrar none of them have this provision of an exceptional character for an independent referee.
  Mr. HOHLER: Until the decision of the Admiralty came I understood there was a right of appeal to enforce an agreement in regard to a scheme.
  10.0 P.M.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should doubt that very much, because some of these schemes must have been certified before the Horn case. There are objections which hon. Gentlemen must weigh to the proposal of an independent outside tribunal. In the first place there can be no doubt that it would add to the delay which has been complained of in regard to administration, and in settling cases under this scheme. In the second place it would undoubtedly lead to additional expense both to the Crown and the workman in presenting and defending a disputed case before an outside independent referee. I think the very existence of an outside referee might lead to an increase in the number of disputed cases, with the result that I think it would be quite likely that the Treasury would throw up its hands, and say, "Very well, we will not go on with this scheme, and we will go back to the Workmen's Compensation Act." I do not think the vast majority of men wish for that. Any workman who wishes to withdraw from the scheme might do so at any time; therefore the option is quite clear. [An HON. MEMBER: "That man would be a marked man."] The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to the independent character of the dockyard men. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we would mark such men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] Of course not. Or does he suggest that the men themselves would mark such workmen. I do not think that that would be entertained for a moment. As to delay, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee made a very strong attack upon the delay which followed
  1642
  from the operation of this scheme. He said the poor widow might be kept waiting for months for a settlement, and get no reply from the Admiralty to the representations made. The simple cases are settled in a very few weeks—seven, eight, or nine weeks. Where there is a large number of detailed inquiries involved the time occupied, of course, is longer. I will take a list of the last ten deaths in the home yards. I will take the date from the man's death to the date of the Admiralty Order authorising payment of compensation. No. 1. 17th May, 1910, to the 30th June, 1910—from the date of death to the date of awarding the compensation. No. 2, 23rd June, 1910, to the 5th October, 1910. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not give the names."] No, certainly not; there is no particular point in the names. Of course, as I said, there is considerable delay where communications pass to and fro between the Admiralty and the Home Yard, and where the collection of further evidence is perhaps required. No. 3, 20th June, 1910, the date of the death, to the 6th August, 1910. No. 4, 15th August, 1910, to the 23rd September, 1910. No. 5, 7th August, 1910, to 27th September, 1910. No. 6, 13th October, 1910, to 30th December, 1910. No. 7 is the only other case in which there was considerable delay, and there we had the assistance of an hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, who suggested that the particular method of paying compensation which we adopted did not operate to the best advantage and that we should make some other allocation in the interests of the person concerned. We did that, and we were very much obliged to the hon. Member. No. 7, 14th December, 1910, to 6th March, 1911. No. 8, 31st December 1910, to 15th February, 1911. No. 9, 18th November, 1910, to 16th February, 1911. No. 10, 5th January, 1911, to 16th February, 1911. I am rather inclined to think that the county court jurisdiction would not be any more prompt than the jurisdiction in connection with which I have given this list of cases. Then I come to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler), who last Monday week referred to the question of compensation in the case of apprentices on the wages paid for the previous twelve months, though the wages, perhaps, had quadrupled from the time the apprentice had entered. I would point out to him that the scheme provides for compensation on the actual earnings for the previous

  1643
  twelve months. That is why we take the earnings for twelve months. We have no choice but to administer the scheme upon its own terms. We have secured this from the Treasury in regard to this particular aspect, that in the case of an apprentice who is hurt soon after leaving apprenticeship, the Treasury have undertaken that any real case of hardship of this character shall be specially considered in the matter of dealing with the amount of money to be awarded. Those are the criticisms of these schemes as far as I have heard them, and I have endeavoured to meet them with as much desire to treat those men considerately as any man in this House.
  I turn to the Horn case, and I make no complaint of the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) raising it. Generally the dates, although there are slight variations, agree. Let me try to put the case of the late Mr. George Horn, tinsmith. He was observed by Dr. Emmett, the local medical inspector of factories, when visiting the depot on 20th October, not the 26th, although these little differences do not affect the main issue, to be suffering from lead poisoning. He suggested that Mr. Horn should be examined by the dockyard surgeon. Mr. Horn was so examined, and was placed on the hurt list on 23rd October. He was attended by the dockyard surgeon until 12th November, when he was sent to Haslar Hospital. The surgeon who admitted him undoubtedly considered he was suffering from lead poisoning. But a more detailed examination on 13th November and subsequent examinations led the Haslar Hospital doctor to form the opinion that Mr. Horn was suffering from organic heart disease of long standing. He died on 12th December. A post mortem examination was held, no traces of lead poisoning were found, but heart disease was of long standing, and the death certificate was therefore natural causes, heart disease, not attributable to the Service. Our statement of the case and that of the Noble Lord agree to that point. According to the subsequent testimony of Dr. Legge of the Home Office, Mr. Horn's case was one in which the patient was rapidly breaking up with the symptoms of heart disease becoming dominant and signs of lead poisoning becoming masked. On 31st December a claim for compensation on behalf of the widow was received by the Admiralty. The claim was preferred by
  1644
  Mr. Kent, a solicitor on behalf of those who collected a fund, as the Noble Lord tells us, to pursue this matter, and to see that Mrs. Horn got what they considered was justice and fair play. It wag care fully considered, and while it is not disputed that Horn had suffered from lead poisoning——
  Lord C. BERESFORD: By whom?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: By us. The Haslar Hospital report, which was endorsed by the then Deputy Director-General of the Medical Department, so that we certainly took medical testimony of considerable weight, stated emphatically that the cause of death was failure of heart compensation following long standing disease of the heart. Therefore the claim for compensation was refused by the Admiralty on 7th February, 1910, because death was not attributable to the service, as shown by the certificate. The Noble Lord says if Mrs. Horn had not got behind her a few friends who could put some money down she would never have got her rights. I do not know that I should express an opinion on that. It is a matter of opinion. Let me state the facts, and then let Members form their own opinion. The claim for compensation was refused. Mr. Kent made further communication, including a detailed report from Dr. Emmett, which I think we had never had up to that time——
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I mentioned that.
  An HON. MEMBER: Your own inspector.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Inspector of Factories—the Home Office inspector. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Government Inspector."] Surely I am not to take on my shoulders the responsibilities of all Departments? I think I am right in saying that we had not this detailed report, as the Noble Lord observed, and in view of the conflict of medical testimony then before us, and some of which had not been before us up to that time, on 22nd April, 1910, we decided to hold a special inquiry presided over by Admiral Sir John Durnford. The Noble Lord said that if there were not people behind Mrs. Horn she would not have secured this inquiry, but having received this evidence we proceeded straight away to hold the inquiry and the Noble Lord can put what construction he pleases on our action. In the meantime an application was filed in the

  1645
  county court, and the hearing by agreement was fixed for the 9th June. I want the House to observe that the inquiry reported on the 11th May to the effect that Mr. Horn suffered from heart disease of long standing, and also from lead poisoning, and that death was due to aortic disease and lead poisoning. The case was at once represented to the Treasury and that Department on the 6th June, 1910, awarded compensation to the amount of £266 three days before the case was heard in the county court. Let no one say that our action was decided by what took place in the county court. That was not the case.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I did not suggest that.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it was suggested that we gave compensation because the county court judge gave a verdict against us, a verdict in a matter in which they had no jurisdiction, as will appear. That was not so. As a matter of fact the decision of the Treasury was arrived at three days before the county court decision was arrived at. The Noble Lord would say possibly you would never have had the inquiry or had the finding with £266 compensation had it not been that this action had been taken. As I say, he must draw his own conclusions. All I have to do is to state facts. The Noble Lord said, "What a mean thing it is to withdraw from the compensation the hurt pay." I am sorry to say we have no choice in that matter. We cannot break the law. I am not quite sure whether if the hon. Gentleman would look into the Statute that he would not find that we could not do so.
  Mr. HOHLER: There is such a provision in the Act.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If he will look at the schedule he will find that we are compelled to withdraw hurt-pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Act."] And the scheme is framed under the Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "You made the scheme."] Quite true, and we have no alternative but to withdraw the hurt-pay.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: You "may."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards costs. If we had relieved these people there would have been no charge on the Navy Votes. It is a matter for the Treasury; it would not have come out of our money at all. We have no jurisdiction except that we could say to the Treasury it might be I
  1646
  desirable that they should pay the costs. But what happened with regard to costs? Before the hearing in the county court the solicitor for the Crown offered to pay the full compensation due, and the Treasury, in addition, as an act of grace, offered to pay the reasonable costs of the applicant. I do not understand the extraordinary view taken of the word "reasonable." An hon. Member opposite suggested that the inclusion of the word "reasonable" indicated that it was a bogus telegram. That is an extraordinary interpretation which I cannot follow. That offer was refused. Why, I do not know. These good people exercised their judgment, as it was their business to do, and they refused it. At no time did the Admiralty, in the court, contest its liability to pay compensation. What it did contest was the jurisdiction of the county court in the matter, and the full settlement of the case was suspended until the Court of Appeal had decided the point involved. The Treasury took the view—and it was so under the scheme—that the county court had no jurisdiction in the matter; and, although we had offered to pay full compensation, we were bound to appeal against the jurisdiction assumed by the county court. In the end we were successful. Meantime, we made an allowance of 10s. a week to this poor widow.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: After seven months. For seven months she got nothing.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say the precise length of time, but whatever blame is attachable to us I am prepared to take. I am stating the case quite fairly. We made an allowance of 10s. a week from the time we gave an undertaking to pay compensation, pending the appeal on the question of the jurisdiction of the county court. The Court of Appeal decided, as I have said, that the county court had no jurisdiction, and the Noble Lord said the other night that that circumstance ought to be noted by Labour Members, because our action had prevented any appeal ever being made in the future in regard to this matter. But there was nothing new in that decision. The assumption of the county court was entirely new. We were not introducing a new disability.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That was not any point. We all know perfectly well that the county court had no jurisdiction. My point was that here was a case produced as a practical fact showing the working men and employés that they could never

  1647
  appeal again, no matter how unjust they thought a case might be, against the domination of the Treasury, who settled the affair in their own way, being judge, jury, and everything else.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They could not appeal under this scheme. But they never could. Therefore, it was nothing new that we had done. [An HON. MEMBER: "They did not know it before."] They did not know it before; but now it is laid down. They could appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They are welcome tomorrow to come and say: "We will not have this scheme." I would advise hon. Gentlemen who represent dockyard constituencies to endeavour to get to know perfectly clearly what the wish of the men is in this matter. The Court of Appeal decided that the county court judge had no jurisdiction. On the question of costs let me say that the case going against the Crown in the first instance in the county court, we bore the £23 costs. That sum was refunded to the Crown on behalf of the widow when the Crown won on appeal. The Crown—this is the meanness!—could also have imposed upon Mrs. Horn if we had wished our costs in the county court and in the Court of Appeal. We waived this. Is the Noble Lord aware of that?
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Yes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think it ought to be known that the question of costs does not affect us at all—does not affect the Estimates one way or the other. But I will undertake to convey the suggestion that has been made in regard to these costs to the Treasury. All I would say in regard to Horn is that from the medical point of view—I think the Noble Lord will agree—it was a difficult case.
  Even if we fail to agree here, in nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand cases we do manage to solve them with consideration, sympathy, and even generosity to our employés. It has been decided that instead of the Admiralty saying: "When we get a certificate we will settle the case one way or the other—if there is any doubt on that point this is the weak link in the chain—we shall refer it to the Treasury and to their medical referee for what it is worth. Many hon. Members desire that there should be an independent tribunal. That brings me back to the general proposition to set up an independent tribunal. I will convey this suggestion, the one
  1648
  about the apprentices, and that about the costs to the Treasury. What the success will be it would ill-become me to say. I do not want to raise any hopes that I shall not be able to realise, particularly in regard to this poor widow. It may be impracticable to set up this independent tribunal. It may be that it will be considered by those concerned that the workmen had better go back to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Very well; they must take the consequences of that proposition. I will undertake that the matter shall be re-examined carefully by those who, together with us, are responsible for the carrying out of the administration of this scheme, which, in the vast majority of cases, is administered sympathetically to the workmen, and who, I believe honestly, and for a number of reasons, would rather have this than the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down commenced his speech by making a claim that I think he was fully justified in making, that the Admiralty does endeavour to do justice in all these cases, and certainly that is my recollection of the Admiralty practice. With regard to the hon. Gentleman himself in particular, we recognise on both sides of the House he does look into all these matters in a sympathetic spirit, and perhaps with unusual attention. But I think, having said that, the hon. Member will agree that the raising of this case by my hon. Friends, supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House, was fully justified, and that the Debate has been productive of very good results. So far as assurances and undertakings on the part of the hon. Gentleman himself are concerned, it has done good. Whether he will be able to make these assurances good is another matter; we know he will do his best. We all know the difficulties with the Treasury. I shall only refer briefly to the individual case of the man Horn, because it has been so fully and adequately dealt with already. I should like to say this about the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Admiralty really acted generously in the case of this man Horn, and that in fact they had intended to act generously all the time, and that it was rather unwarrantable on the part of hon. Members on this side of the House to suggest that the Admiralty would not do exactly what they are doing now, quite irrespective of any pressure being brought to bear upon them, or apart

  1649
  from the fact that the widow of this unfortunate man was lucky enough to enlist influential support of her claim, the House can draw its own deduction. The House has drawn its own deduction, and was bound to do so from the statement of the facts. There is not a shadow of doubt nothing would have been done but for the action taken. We can all draw our own deductions. It was only upon the report of Dr. Emmett that the Admiralty took action. There would have been no action on the part of the Admiralty but for the report of Dr. Emmett. The Admiralty have now paid £266 compensation; they have deducted a certain sum as they were bound to do, I understand, by statute. In that case the sooner the statute is altered the better, because it does seem hard when the sum which the hon. Gentleman calls full compensation was paid that there should be any deduction from it when it is the only means of livelihood left to the widow. There was also the point raised of the delay of seven months. Thai, I suggest, is a very serious matter indeed. Even if the Admiralty are going to pay in the end this widow has been left for seven months without any visible means of subsistence. There is no more difficult position than that for a widow to be left in at the death of her husband. I hope the hon. Member will approach the Treasury in order to see whether it is not possible where there is prima facie evidence of a case of this nature to have some kind of interim allowance for a widow in such circumstances to protect her against the perils to which she is exposed. The Admiralty doctors certified that this man had been suffering from plumbism, and I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will find some means of dealing with this difficulty. With regard to costs, I thank the hon. Member for his promise to approach the Treasury. He says it is no business of the Admiralty, and he has undertaken to bring the matter before the Treasury. So much for that individual case, but what is more important for us to know is how we can make sure that there will be no more of these Horn cases in future. What is the position of men similarly situated as a result of this litigation and the decision of the High Court that the men cannot go to law about this matter at all. I am sure their position is not understood by them, and it is very difficult to see what security they will have. This brings me back to the general question of this scheme. I think the hon. Gentleman was quite justified in the
  1650
  caveat he put in against the suggestion that the men wished to see this scheme abolished. I think there is a greater difference of opinion than that which is reflected by the figures read to the House. In spite of the cogent arguments of the hon. Member for Chatham, I do not believe if a ballot were taken it would be found that there was a majority in favour of giving up the scheme. At any rate, that is my own private view, and I give it for what it is worth. I am not prepared personally to advocate that that course should be adopted.
  An important point was raised which, I think, was made somewhat too light of, as to whether there was coercion to make the men accept the scheme, and whether there was any misunderstanding or impression that their prospects might be injured if they did not accept the scheme. An hon. Member showed us a form of contract which was handed to the men at the dockyard gates, which they are asked to sign. I think that is a somewhat ominous way of eliciting the opinion of the men, and it may tend to make them suspicious. Probably that accounts for the overwhelming preponderance of figures in favour of the scheme, and that practice might very well be done away with. Whether the best course would be to hold a ballot at intervals I am not prepared to say. The Secretary to the Admiralty has undertaken to look into that matter and consider whether it is possible to alter the present practice, which is open to a certain amount of objection. The real objection to the scheme about which so much has been said undoubtedly is to the idea that whether it is the Admiralty or the Treasury, they are acting as the prime judge in a matter which affects their pocket. There is, undoubtedly, a very strong opinion on that point. The hon. Gentleman says that if you appointed an outside referee it would lead to greater delay, but I think the men would be willing to chance that. I think the suggestion or undertaking to appoint an independent referee would be very warmly received by the men. At any rate, I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will give the men an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this point. What I feel about the matter is not that there is so much objection to the scheme itself as to the way in which it is interpreted by Government Departments and the way in which it has worked in certain particulars. I believe it works well as a rule, but I believe it is inevitable, when you make a Government Department referee or judge

  1651
  in matters which concern itself, whilst it may work well and smoothly in the majority of cases, the door will always be left open for the perpetration of individual cases of hardship, such as, I think, occurred in Horn's case. It ought to be possible to make the scheme so watertight that individual cases of hardship are no longer possible, as they are possible, and I think the way in which that can be done is by having an independent referee outside. Those are the considerations which have occurred to me in listening to all the speeches made and to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and I feel sure he will do his best in the matter. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) is not in his place, but I should have felt inclined to resent the suggestion which he made that we, the Opposition, in this matter are influenced in any way by a desire to attack or injure the Government. I do not think the Government would bring that accusation against us, in view of the way in which we have supported them throughout this Session on matters of naval policy and of Naval Estimates. We do feel, however, this was a substantial grievance, and my hon. Friends have been thoroughly justified in bringing it forward. I only hope the result of the Debate will be that the recurrence of a case such as this will be utterly impossible.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I have been very deeply interested in this case, and I must confess I think it has been fairly well discussed. I believe a good deal of credit is to be given to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford) for having raised the question, but I understand he alleged that the Labour party, when they raised a similar question, ran away from the Division. I am rather surprised to find, according to the speeches, that there is not going to be a Division to-night.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Oh, yes there is.
  Mr. DUNCAN: It did not appear so, but, if there is one, the Noble Lord will, at any rate, see the Member for Barrow with him. After a little experience in this House, one is rather inclined to think the worse the case the more eloquently it is pleaded. That is the conclusion to which I have come after having listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Camber-well (Dr. Macnamara). If this case had not been fought in the County Court there
  1652
  is not the slightest conceivable doubt in my mind that the widow would never have got a cent. The real weakness of the position is that the claims men may make under the scheme are not enforceable. That is at the root of the whole difficulty. We have had a rather lengthy speech from the hon. Gentleman, but I am inclined to think he did not deal as fully with that point as he might have done. Let the House clearly understand that, so far as the present scheme is concerned, it cannot be enforced. If the men employed in the dockyards understood that as well as hon. Members of this House do, they would realise that they are absolutely without a remedy. The whole scheme breathes a system of begging for those things which ought to be given in justice; they have under it to be asked for in forma pauperis, and I object altogether to that kind of business. If any big employer in the North of England tried it on he would find he had struck a piece of iron which was exceedingly hot. It is a bad system, a system no reasonable man can defend, and the sooner the people in dockyard and arsenal towns are told frankly, honestly, and straight that their claims under this scheme cannot be enforced the better it will be. If they had the facts before them I very much doubt if they would vote by 39,000 to 139 in favour of the scheme.
  We have, too, a bone to pick with the Registrar. If Horn's case had been under the Workmen's Compensation Act and it had been taken into the County Court he would have won it and would have obtained not only the £260, but also his costs. The Registrar, in certifying that the scheme was as good as the Act, was not up to his business, for it has been demonstrated that in this particular case the scheme was worse than the Act to the extent of the £90 costs. What is the position of the Registrar? He receives a salary from the Government, and to that extent he is not an independent party. He has to assume that the Government will treat its employés fairly and that any scheme they lay before him is bonâ fide. The scheme may be bonâ fide so far as benefits are concerned, but the point at issue is the enforceability of the claims. The Registrar only accepts the scheme as equal to or even, perhaps, a little better than the Act as far as the benefits are concerned. He has nothing to do with the enforceability of the claims. That suggests to me the position of a man riding on a donkey's back and holding a

  1653
  stick from which dangles a bunch of carrots in front of his nose. The carrots are there, but the donkey never reaches them, and we have had this case to-night which proves to demonstration that however well disposed these people who are behind the scheme are there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any man in this House to-night that under such a so-called beneficent scheme the most scandalous cases of hardship and cruelty might easily arise. Therefore it seems to me that the case as it has been laid down by the hon. Member for Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara) will not hold water if the whole case is considered. What we have to consider is whether the men employed in the dockyards and arsenals will be given to understand what a broken reed they have been relying upon. It is very easy, of course, to draft a scheme which might be very touching to the eye, and which might seem acceptable to the men, but if the men only realised as the Members of this House do that this scheme is not enforceable and the benefits are illusory, I venture to suggest the voting would be the other way. We are told that a copy of the scheme is given to the men. It is very simple to make a statement like that, but I venture to say that my experience in this House is a wonderful acquisition to me. I think if such a scheme had been put before me a few years before I stood for Parliament, and come to this House, I might have swallowed it, but I venture to say the hon. Member for Camberwell would not expect me to swallow this scheme now, after having been in the House, and realising how illusory the promises made in it are. There has been sufficient criticism in this House to indicate both to the Admiralty and the War Department that they have the men to-day at a disadvantage, and I want to suggest to them that it is their business to see what a flimsy base the whole scheme stands on. The hon. Member himself gave his case away—absolutely gave it away. When opening his speech he alluded to what one of the hon. Members opposite said about bringing the case to this House, and the individual is supposed to say "then I get fair play."
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Then hon. Member is wrong. It is bringing the case to the Admiralty.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: That is quite good enough. It is just as good for my case as the other statement I made. He brings
  1654
  the case to the Admiralty, and then he begins to get fair play, but then it seemed to me that that is really a scandalous thing to suppose that a man who was injured in following his employment has got to come to this House——[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, he has got to find a Member somewhere who is prepared to fight his case.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: He has got to find a Member to put his case. It is not to be supposed that he will have sufficient brains to state his case himself.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We have these cases before us every year, and sit and listen to them very patiently constantly. There is no occasion to come to Parliament.
  Mr. HOHLER: I would ask whether every case that I had has not been refused by the Admiralty, and I have had to bring it on?
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: I do not think for a moment I am endeavouring to put the case too high, but I am endeavouring to put the case as strongly as I can, and I think that every Member in this House, on whichever side he sits, will agree with me that until the individual concerned succeeds in getting some Member properly to put his case he is practically out of court. Then, I suggest, he has got further to find the kind of Member of Parliament who will persist in fighting his case. Under these circumstances, the man has in some way to get into touch with somebody he did not know before, and he has to get him to take his case up and fight it, and then, and then only, can he hope for justice. I do not attribute the slightest shadow of feeling to my hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara). All I am saying is that the scheme is bad and the system is rotten, and the sooner the whole thing is put on a fair and proper basis the better it will be not only for the workman, but for the various Government Departments. I understand, of course, the point underlying the scheme. It is supposed to be a little more generous than the Act. I think we ought to be getting past the time when it is the business of the Government to start coddling its thousands of workmen. It seems to me if the Act is good enough for the millions of workpeople in this country—and under that Act they can at least get justice—it ought to be equally good for men employed by the Government. I do

  1655
  not care for the moment whether the men in the dockyard towns and the arsenals agree with that or not, but as soon as they realise the precarious position of the scheme as it exists to-day, they will pretty speedily come to my opinion too. I think I have said enough to indicate that there is something seriously wrong, and I am pleased to think that the question has been raised. But in this case where the first doctor certified lead poisoning, and other doctors who, I suppose, knew less about lead poisoning certified heart disease, and then another doctor agreed with the first, it seems to me that there has been a good deal of slackness in not testing the medical opinion of the first doctor. That was the first slip, and I hope now that the case has been voiced we shall never have another case, and that the method of dealing with the workmen in giving them their compensation will be just as good as that given to the rest of the workpeople in this country.
  Mr. BOOTH: Perhaps some observations from one who has carefully studied the question and is deeply interested in it might be of advantage to the House. The compensation scheme which has been put before the House is after all one of those things which require very calm consideration. A compensation scheme such as has been suggested requires not only to be carried out in the letter, but also in the spirit. Speaking as a business man with considerable experience of compensation schemes, I urge hon. Members in
  their consideration of it always to remember that an important part is the spirit in which it is administered. I have a very large amount of sympathy with the position of the hon. Member (Mr. Duncan), but at the same time his chief complaint was that he was afraid of the spirit in which it would be administered. These compensation cases come before the county courts, and the judges there, who are ornaments of their profession, may be trusted to put the best construction on the various cases that come before, them. I think hon. Members who have heard the Debate understand the scheme thoroughly well, but I am not so sure about those who have come in late. This important scheme ought, in my judgment, to have a trial. I can assure hon. Members below the Gangway, that if when this scheme has had a fair trial and has received the consideration it ought to receive, and if the Treasury or the Admiralty do not give it the consideration which the workpeople think it deserves, they may rely on Liberals like myself to support them in any effort they may make to have the position improved. I hope I have said sufficient to convince hon. Members opposite that when they have a good case it always receives sympathetic consideration on this side of the House. As I wish to give hon. Members opposite the opportunity which will delight their hearts, I will refrain from saying those things which I might have said.
  Question put, "That '£395,500' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 103.

  Division No. 102]

  AYES.

  [10.59 p.m.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clynes, John R

  Harvey, T. E (Leeds, West)

  Adamson, William

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Anderson, Andrew Macbeth

  Crooks, William

  Hayward, Evan

  Armitage, Robert

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

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

  Hinds, John

  Barton, William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hodge, John

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Holt, Richard Durning

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Elverston, Harold

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Falconer, James

  Johnson, William

  Brace, William

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Brigg, Sir John

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Gulland, John William

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

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

  Hancock, John George

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Toulmin, George

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Wadsworth, John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robinson, Sydney

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

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

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Watt, Henry A.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Webb, H.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  St. Maur, Harold

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Munro, Robert

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

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Neilson, Francis

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Whyte, A. F.

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shortt, Edward

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithero)

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutton, John E.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  NOES.

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

  Fleming, Valentine

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Newton, Harry Kottinghnm

  Ashley, Wilfred W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Nield, Herbert

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  O'Grady, James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldstone, Frank

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Barnes, George N.

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Barnston, Harry

  Hill-Wood, S. (High Peak)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Stewart, Gershom

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Boyton, James

  Kebty-Fletcher. J. R.

  Swift, Rigby

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Campion, W. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cassel, Felix

  Lansbury, George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Cater, John

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybrldge)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Martin, Joseph

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Younger, George

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Eyres-Mensell, Bolton M.

  Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Lord Charles Beresford and Mr. Falle.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Debate adjourned; to be resumed upon Monday next, 3rd April.

ARMY ESTIMATES [15th March].— REPORT.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): May I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow the non-effective Army Votes to be taken. Instead of half a day being taken on Report, the whole day was occupied, and we only got Votes A and 1, leaving these non-effective Votes as to pensions, which are non-controversial. I may point out that
1658
the extra non-counted day will be given, and therefore I would appeal to hon. Members to allow these Votes to be taken.
Sir ALEXANDER ACLAND-HOOD: The facts are very simple. We have had so much guillotine, and so much guillotine is threatened in the future, that I regret I cannot accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Resolved, That a Select Committee be appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with

1659
the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, provided that on every separate sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it; and that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:
That the Committee do consist of Lord Charles Beresford, Sir William Bull, Mr. Burt, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Hackett, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. Lloyd, Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, Mr. Reddy, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Mr. Lees Smith, Mr. Stanier, and Mr. Henry J. Wilson:
That Three be the quorum.—[Master of Elibank.]
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That the House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.