Commons Sitting of 11 May 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
West Cheshire Water Bill,
Wirral Water Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Acton, Torquay, Tottenham, Wolverhampton, and the Whaley Bridge Joint Sewerage District," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) (NO. 2) BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Droitwich," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the urban districts of Blackrock and Donaghadee," presented by Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland; supported by Mr. Birrell; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to St. Andrew's Ambulance Association Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Christ Church, Glasgow."—[Christ Church, Glasgow, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
Christ Church, Glasgow, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Order (under Section 7 of The Private Legislation (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered upon Monday next.

NATIONAL DEBT.
Return ordered, "showing for each Financial Year commencing the 1st day of April, from 1875 to 1911, inclusive:—

I. The total amount of Dead Weight Debt outstanding on 1st day of April; the amounts which were made available in each year to 1910–11, inclusive, for reduction of Debt, distinguishing the sums expressly provided for service of the Debt, the Old Sinking Fund, and Miscellaneous Receipts; the Gross Amount of Debt redeemed; the amount of Debt created; and the Net Increase or Decrease of Debt in the year;

II. A similar Statement in respect of other Capital Liabilities;

III. A similar Statement in respect of the Aggregate Gross Liabilities of the State."—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  German Shipping, Commerce, and Trade.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the interest taken by the German Government in all matters concerning shipping, commerce, and trade, and of the expansion in German shipping, commerce, and trade; if he can state whether German Ministers and Consuls abroad, in matters relating to shipping, commerce, and trade, communicate with or through their Foreign Secretary, or the Minister occupying a similar position to that of our President of the Board of Trade; and whether, in the interests of British shipping, commerce, and trade, he will consider the desirability of arranging that British Ministers and Consuls abroad shall communicate direct with the President of the Board of Trade instead of with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): There are already means of direct communication between the Board of Trade

  1355
  and British Consuls. It would take some time to read an answer describing the existing practice by which information is received and distributed, but if the hon. Member will put an unstarred question on the Paper, I will have a fuller answer given. I have no reason to believe that German Consuls give more assistance or information than British Consuls afford.

  Buenos Ayres (Shipping Congestion).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the right hon. Baronet has yet received any formal complaints and particulars respecting the congestion of shipping at Buenos Ayres resulting in loss and injury to British shipping, commerce, and employment in this country; and, if he has, will he state what action he proposes to take with a view to remedying this state of affairs?
  Before the right hon. Baronet answers my question, I should like to thank him for his courteous communication to me which I did not receive until after this question was put on the Paper.
  Sir E. GREY: As the hon. Member is aware. I have received the information he himself sent me. His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Aires was recently approached by a deputation representing shipping interests, and has been authorised to make friendly and unofficial representations to the Argentine Government on the subject.

  North Louth Voters' List.
  Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the official Parliamentary Voters List for the North Louth division of the county of Louth was published on the 1st of last January; that that official list did not contain the name of Arthur McKevett; that a local government nomination was since rejected on the ground that he was not a registered voter; that a new list has now been published in which the name is written in; and will he say what official is responsible for this proceeding, seeing that the courts have decided that no court or official can add to or strike out a name on the list once the official list is published?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I understand that the facts are as stated in the question. I
  1356
  am informed by the Clerk of the Peace that the name of Mr. McKevett was included in the official list settled by the Revising Barrister, and it was also in the list furnished by the Clerk of the Peace to the printer, but was omitted by an error from the list as printed. The attention of the Clerk of the Peace was not directed to the omission until 26th April, and, I understand, he then called on the printer to furnish a corrected list with the name inserted, and, that being clone, he sent it to the Sheriff.

  Evicted Tenants (County Limerick).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether, having regard to the promise repeatedly made by the Estates Commissioners to reinstate Mrs. O'Shaughnessy and Mrs. Hayes in the farms at Aughanish Island, in the county of Limerick, from which they were evicted considerably over twenty years ago by Edward Lane Joynt, he would state what is the cause of delay in their being reinstated and when may their reinstatement take place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: These lands have not yet been acquired by the Estates Commissioners, who have not been able to come to an agreement with the owner as regards the upkeep of the embankment which protects the estate against injury from floods in the Shannon and its tributaries Under the leases under which the former tenants held the lands they were liable to maintain the embankment, and the Commissioners understand that the owner is in communication with the tenants as to its future maintenance.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Does that mean that these evicted tenants who have been out of their holdings for considerably over twenty years are to have their reinstatement postponed indefinitely?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; I think not. The arrangement for the maintenance of the banks is a matter of imperative necessity.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not absolutely necessary that a certain proportion of the purchase money should be kept from the landlord to see that the banks are properly kept up?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have already said that under the lease that obligation is upon the tenants and therefore I do not know that the landlord can be made to assume it while the negotiations are going on.
  Captain CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why Mrs. O'Shaughnessy was ejected from her farm twenty years' ago?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, I could not say.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I want to ask the Chief Secretary to communicate with the Estates Commissioners and tell them that if they do not bring about a settlement of this case I will bring about a settlement very quickly.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. KELLYasked whether proceedings for the sale of the estate of Joseph Johnson, (continued in the name of Charlotte Johnson), owner Thomas Elliot, petitioner, are still pending; and, if so what is the cause of the delay in this case; and is he aware that the solicitor for the tenants was informed by the Estates Commissioners that they expected to be in a position in October last to serve the necessary notices to enable the sale to proceed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Registrar of the Land Judge's Court informs me that the grant in lieu of the lease for lives referred to in my reply to the hon. Member's question of 27th February last has not yet been executed owing to further difficulties as to title which are being dealt with. No sales in connection with this estate appear to be pending before the Estates Commissioners, who are unable, from the particulars available, to trace the communication with the tenants' solicitor referred to in the question.
  Mr. KELLY: Are proceedings now pending before the Land Judge?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; they are.
  Mr. HAYDENasked when the negotiations for the purchase by the Congested Districts Board of the Ellis Estate at Bushfield and Ballymaglancy, in the county of Roscommon, commenced; and what was the cause of the delay in having the purchase completed?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate was offered under the Act of 1909 to the Congested Districts Board in February, 1910. The estate has been inspected, and an offer will soon be made to the landlord.
  Mr. HAYDENasked what was the present state of the negotiations for the purchase by the Congested Districts Board of the Bowen and White Estate at Ballymacurly, county Roscommon?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me chat the owners have refused to negotiate for the sale of this estate.
  Mr. HAYDENasked whether the Estates Commissioners have yet been able to ascertain the exact acreage and valuation of the holdings in the rural district of Glenamaddy, county Galway, surrendered by Messrs. John and James Payne, and the acreage and valuation of the fee simple holding given to them in exchange on the Crofton estate, in the county Roscommon; and whether he can explain the delay in ascertaining this information?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Messrs. Payne surrendered 523 acres of land on the Pollok Estate, county Galway, the poor law valuation being £326 10s., in exchange for 334 acres on the Crofton Estate, county Roscommon, with a valuation of £389. There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in. obtaining this information.
  Mr. HAYDEN: May I ask whether it is not a fact the Commissioners could get this information by return of post from the County Council offices at Galway, but have delayed three months, and I have had to put seven questions in order to get it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know that I am to blame in the matter. If the hon. Member had put down a question since 13th April, the information could have been given at once, so the delay has not occurred since that date.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether untenanted land on the Alexander estate, situate at Cruicestown, Nobber, county Meath, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners; and with what result?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of direct sale proceedings under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the vendor has included for sale to the Estates Commissioners some 272 acres of the lands of Cruicestown. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the Commissioners will consider the question of purchasing these lands.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether any progress had been made in the matter of the offer of Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., Farragh, to sell the untenanted lands of Coolcraff, county Longford, to the Estates

  1359
  Commissioners for the extension of uneconomic holdings in the parish of Abbeylara, North Longford?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have directed an inspection to be made of these lands with a view to estimating the price which might be advanced for them, but they have not yet received their inspector's report.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Hugh Carry, Monknewtown, Slane, county Meath, for a parcel of untenanted land; and whether they have any land purchased, or negotiating the acquisition of, in the immediate neighbourhood?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable from the information in the question to identify the application of Hugh Carry for a parcel of untenanted land.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the petition recently lodged with them to have the O'Grady Delmege estate at Glensharrold, county Limerick, declared a congested one; whether the turbary on the estate is being sold to outsiders, and hat, unless the Commissioners buy the estate at once there will be no turbary left for the tenants during the period of the repayment of the purchase annuities; and whether, under these circumstances, the Commissioners will buy the estate without further delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The petition referred to was received by the Estates Commissioners on 10th April, and they are at present in communication with the representatives of the tenants on the subject.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Who are the representatives of the tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will ascertain.

  Local Government Board (Ireland) Grants.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a resolution from the Navan Rural Council protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in reducing the grants for medical and educational purposes; and if he would state what authority the Board had for its action?
  Mr. O'DOWDalso asked whether the Chief Secretary was aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland had recently issued a circular stating that the amount paid out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account in aid of the local rates would be reduced by one-half in the coming year; and, if so, whether, considering that Ireland is already overtaxed, and in view of the effect of this policy on the finances of boards of guardians and district councils, the matter would be reconsidered with a view to having this circular cancelled?
  Mr. BIRRELL: These two questions appear to be based on a misapprehension. The circular issued by the Local Government Board on 21st April, to which reference presumably is made, does not contain any statement that, the amount paid out of the Local Taxation Account in aid of the local rates will be reduced by one-half in the coming year, but merely gives effect to an administrative arrangement by which Clerks of Unions will be saved the trouble of rendering, as heretofore, at this period of the year, returns of expenditure for medical and educational purposes, other than for medicines and medical and surgical appliances, for the half-year ended 31st March. It is intended, if the money in the Local Taxation Account is sufficient for the purpose, to make to boards of guardians, in September or earlier, advances on account to the extent of one-half the fixed standard amount. The payment of the balance for the year ending 30th September will, when ascertained, be made as in former years, before the end of the financial year.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman as President of the Local Government Board, consulted in these matters by the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In this particular case I had no knowledge of the circular issued, and I quite agree it was expressed in a form which might easily give rise to misapprehension, which I hope I have now allayed.
  Mr. CLANCY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the circular of the Local Government Board gave the impression to all readers of it in Ireland that only half would be paid in future?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is quite a mistake. The intention was to relieve the clerks of unions from an obligation at the present moment to make a particular return.

  1361
  They are now told that they will get one, half of the advances at a particular date and the balance at the end of the financial year.
  Mr. O'DOWD: Does this mean any addition to local taxation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: None, whatever.
  Mr. FARRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause his reply to be circulated as the official action of the. Local Government Board on the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My reply has been made, and will be circulated.

  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary whether he received a petition signed by residents in Newcastle West and district complaining of the conduct of the district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary, and police there; and whether he would grant a sworn inquiry to fully investigate the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have received the petition referred to, but I see no grounds for a sworn inquiry into the matter.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What objection can the right hon. Gentleman have to a sworn inquiry into the action of the police, in order that persons feeling aggrieved may be heard?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can assure the hon. Member I have gone very carefully into this matter myself, and I am quite satisfied a sworn inquiry is out of the question.
  Captain CRAIGasked whether any official inquiry, apart from the coroner's inquest, has been or will be made into the circumstances of the death of the late Constable Costelloe, of Clonbern, county Galway; whether he will take steps to provide for the constabulary authorities to determine whether a constable with twenty years' service is fit for promotion to the rank of sergeant without subjecting him to a further prolonged period of probation as an acting sergeant, and why this is the only force in the Kingdom where such a system exists; will he say why this constable was informed that he would have to revert to his former rank; what offence or offences had he committed; and when he applied for transfer elsewhere why was he refused?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General has directed an official investigation into
  1362
  the circumstances of the death of the late Constable Costelloe, and in the meantime it does not appear to be desirable to discuss the matters referred to in the question.

  West Clare (Extra Police).
  Mr. LYNCHasked what was the amount of the cost to the county of Clare during the past twelve months on account of the extra police and the extra patrols employed in connection with the Kinlea farm; and whether, in view of the character that West Clare now enjoys in the comparative freedom from crime, the extra police may be removed, and the entire police force in the constituency reduced?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member the cost of the police employed on this duty is £170 per annum. The responsible police authorities do not think that the time has yet come when any change in the police arrangements in West Clare can be safely recommended.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration that this is a very onerous burden on the poor population of West Clare, which is black listed, whereas Judge Bodkin said in court it compared well with any county in Great Britain.
  Mr. MOORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of compensation for injuries given in West Clare at the last assizes?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot without notice. I can assure the hon. Member (Mr. Lynch) I am most anxious to relieve any portion of Clare from this expenditure, but at the present moment, in the exercise of my discretion, I cannot do so.

  National Schools (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked what was the date in each of the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1900 that the annual conference required by the Commissioners' regulations was held between the chief inspector of national schools and the various local inspectors of the Ballymena circuit?
  Captain CRAIGalso asked if the required annual conference was regularly held in the Galway circuit between the chief inspector of national schools and the various local inspectors during the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906; and, if so, on what date in each of these years?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the question on this subject addressed to me by the hon. Member for South Wexford on the 6th March.

  Higher Education (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he has considered the proposal of the National Education Board to establish higher grade schools in Ireland similar to those established in England, Scotland, and the Continent; whether, as stated in the Board's report, they have advocated this scheme for years without success; and whether, seeing the general dissatisfaction that prevails as regards higher education in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to report on the whole question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have recommended the establishment of higher grade schools in Ireland, but it was not found possible to make provision in the Estimates 1911–12 for this purpose. I do not think that it would be advisable at the present moment to appoint a committee to report upon the question of higher education in Ireland.

  Unionist Clubs in Ireland (Council Meeting, Belfast).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he has any official information showing that several detectives were present at a council meeting of the Unionist clubs of Ireland, held in Belfast on 15th April; if so, by whose orders were they present and whether they were acting under official instructions?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No orders were issued for the attendance of police at the meeting referred to.
  Mr. MOORE: Were they there?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know whether they were there or not. If they were they were not there in pursuance of any order.
  Mr. KERR-SMILEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry and find out?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, if you like.
  Mr. FARRELL: Why should they not be there as well as at meetings of the United Irish League?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The longer ears the police have the better.
  Mr. MOORE: How long is it since the Government got afraid of loyal institutions in Ireland?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: When did you get afraid of the police?

  Post Facilities (Derryharney, County Fermanagh).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he has received a memorial signed by a number of representative residents of the postal district of Derryharney, county Fermanagh, with reference to a grievance existing in connection with the postal service there; and whether any and, if so, what reply has been sent to the memorial?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have not received the memorial referred to.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LARDNERasked whether the Local Government Board has issued to pension officers in Ireland a form on which the officers are required to state whether any member of the same household as an applicant is in receipt of, or has claimed, or is claiming, a pension, and what is the amount of the pension; whether any such form is issued in England, and, if so, on what date; whether there is any statutory authority for collecting such particulars; whether the fact of any other member of the household so claiming would disqualify the claimant; if not, what is the object of the circular; and whether this step has been taken with the knowledge or at the instance of the Treasury?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board for Ireland have asked pension officers to supply this information, as the particulars required in the investigation of an appeal may and often have been already furnished by another member of the same household. The fact that another member of the household is in receipt of a pension does not disqualify a claimant. The information has been asked for under the authority of Article 19 of the Old Age Pensions Regulations. I understand it has not been found necessary to ask for similar information in England, but the number of appeals to be dealt with is considerably greater in Ireland.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: What is the object of the circular, if the information supplied cannot be used for the purpose of disqualifying applicants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is only information which is obtained over and over again.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any intelligent reason why they should ask for information which is of no conceivable use to them?
  Mr. BIRRELL: They certainly do not want any information which is not of use to them.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Why do they ask for it, then?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Because they think it is of use to them.
  Mr. KELLY: They have it already.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Why is this information not asked for in England?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say.
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that Mrs. Elizabeth Croucher, a widow, aged 73, now residing at 19, May Road, Gillingham, in the county of Kent, had been refused an old age pension under the following circumstances: Mrs. Croucher has for upwards of fifty years resided in the parish of Gillingham; about two years ago her son, who is resident at Wellington, New Zealand, requested Mrs. Croucher to come out to Visit him; this she did, the son paying the passage money; whilst at Wellington, Mrs. Croucher was so unwell that she decided to return, and arrived in this country about February last; whether Mrs. Croucher is penniless, in bed, and in receipt of parish relief; whether Mrs. Croucher is in fact disqualified to receive an old age pension; and, if so, would he consider whether the Act or the regulations made thereunder can be amended so as to include her case?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am enquiring into the fact s of this case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that there are a number of similar cases of hardship entailed on people who have temporarily lost domicile, and that this is a non-controversial matter, he will introduce an amending Bill to enable pensions to be paid in such cases?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not generally find that a Bill introduced by the
  1366
  Chancellor of the Exchequer is non-controversial. I will consider the point. There is no doubt that there are a few cases of hardship, but I cannot promise to propose legislation on the subject.

  Exportation of Pigs from Ireland.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary whether, having regard to the loss and inconvenience caused to traders and the public by the present regulation, he will advise a reduction of the quarantine imposed, as to store pigs intended for export, from twenty-eight to fourteen days?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no power to interfere with the operation of the regulation in question, which has force under an Order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in England governing the landing in Great Britain of store swine from Ireland.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Board of Agriculture so as to have these restrictions taken off, and the time reduced by one-half?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, I have no objection whatever, if the hon. Member will give me his information, to seeing the Board here in England.

  Military and Civil Pensions (India).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reason why military and civil pensions payable in respect of services in India are payable by the India Office in arrear, either monthly or quarterly; whether it would be possible to arrange that they should be payable in advance as is done in regard to pensions granted for similar services rendered in this country; and, if not, would he be prepared to favourably consider the case of particular persons to whom this facility, if temporarily granted, would be of great benefit?
  They UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The system of paying pensions in arrear is, I understand, followed also in the case of pensions granted for services rendered in this country. The Secretary of Stake does not think that the transient benefit to the pensioner involved in the hon. Member's suggestion is sufficient reason for a departure from this generally accepted principle.
  Mr. HOHLER: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question as to particular cases?
  Mr. MONTAGU: If the hon. Member will tell me the particular cases on which he has based his question I shall, of course, be glad to consider them. But it would be advisable to keep to the same practice as is adopted here, and I think the hon. Member is misinformed as to that practice.

  Magistracy (India).
  Colonel BURNasked if the case will be considered of officers of the Indian Army who accept civil employment as cantonment magistrates in that country, and who, while serving in a purely judicial capacity, are obliged, when they become eligible for promotion, to undergo a severe examination in military subjects, as well as a practical test in drill?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Under the regulations in force all officers of the Indian Army who are employed extra regimentally—whether in military or civil appointments—are required, so long as their names remain on the rolls of the regiment., and so long as they retain a right to revert to those regiments, to pass the ordinary professional examinations for promotion in Army rank. When the right, to revert ceases no further examination in military subjects are required. This rule appears reasonable, and the Secretary of State does not propose to alter it.
  Colonel BURN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that China is the only country in the world where officers acting in a civil capacity are subjected to a military examination?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not know if the hon. Member realises that these officers can at, any time become regimentally employed, and revert to the Army, and it therefore seems only reasonable that they should qualify for promotion in the ordinary way.
  Colonel BURN: But is it not almost without precedent for any officer so employed to revert to regimental duty?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I cannot say. But the rule being that, they have the right to revert, they must, he examined in the ordinary way.

  United States Telephone Service.
  Dr. HILLIERasked the Postmaster-General if he has any official information with regard to the administration of tele-
  1368
  phone services in the United States; and, if so, if he will place it at the disposal of the House?
  The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have a large body of information with regard to the administration of the telephone service by the various companies engaged in the business in the United States where there is no Government system of telegraphs or telephones. Much of the information is of a highly technical character, and a part of it was given on the understanding that it would be regarded as confidential. If the hon. Member will inform me on what particular points he desires information to be furnished, I shall be happy to consider his proposal.

  Walsall Post Office.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General whether the postman employed on the duties of a sorting clerk and telegraphist at Walsall was substituted by a boy messenger, whose duties were in turn covered by a lad employed temporarily, and that the duty is now being covered by an assistant postman at 17s. per week; and whether this particular devolution does not, prevent casual labour, but allows the Post Office to get such labour at the cheapest possible rate?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The duties of the postman substituting the sorting clerk and telegraphist are being performed by an assistant postman at wages of 18s. a week, the age-pay to which he is entitled. The latter's duty is being provided for by the employment of a temporary substitute, who receives the wages proper to the assistant postman's duty. This process of devolution obviates the necessity for employing casual labour on the more important duties of sorting clerks and telegraphists. I find that for one week it was necessary, owing to exceptional pressure, to employ a boy messenger on a postman's duty, and a temporary substitute was employed during that week on the boy messenger's work. The boy messenger is seventeen years of age and is being retained with a view to permanent employment as a postman.

  Post Office Telegrams (Free Delivery Radius).
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether, in order to allay doubts which exist as to the right to receive telegrams within the three-mile

  1369
  limit free of charge, he will state if the delivering office is to measure the three miles by the nearest public road or lane-way to the house of the person to whom the telegram is to be delivered or if, in case there is a public passway across fields and ditches from the public road, the messenger is to use that pass without regard to the difficulties of cycling, especially in dark winter nights, such pass being usually only used by pedestrians and not for other purposes?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member of 28th March, the distance is measured by the nearest route ordinarily available. I will gladly inquire into any specific case where doubt exists, but I am afraid I cannot, on the particulars given, answer the hon. Member's hypothetical question.
  Mr. FARRELL: Does not the whole thing turn on the question what the word "route" means?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case he has in his mind I will have inquiry made into that specific case.
  Mr. FARRELL: I will.

  George V. Postage Stamps.
  Sir FREDERICK CAWLEYasked when the new issue of George V. postage stamps will be made?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The new adhesive postage stamps of several denominations, including ½d. and 1d. and postcards and letter cards bearing the new stamps, will, I anticipate, be placed on sale on the day of His Majesty's Coronation. The new adhesive stamps of other denominations and other articles of stamped stationery will be issued as soon as possible afterwards.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the postcards be sold at face value?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, both the penny and halfpenny cards will be sold at the face value of the stamps on them.

  Bruree (County Limerick) Mail Service.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Postmaster-General why the mails are now required to depart from Bruree, county Limerick, on Sundays at 11.30 a.m., whereas for the past thirty years they did not leave until 3.30 p.m., and some
  1370
  mails do not leave Kilmallock until 10 p.m.; and whether he will direct that the time as formerly be continued?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made in the matter, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Colonial and Crown Colony Stamps (Exchange).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for the exchange into Home stamps at the district post offices of postage stamps sent to this country in payment of small sums from the dominions oversea, from India, and from the Crown Colonies?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already considered the question, and regret that it would not be practicable to arrange for the exchange of postage stamps suggested by the hon. Member. In most parts of the Empire Imperial postal orders and reply coupons are available for making small remittances.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: May I ask whether, having regard to the great convenience this arrangement would afford to a large number of persons the right hon. Gentleman will confer with the Colonial Premiers on the subject with a view if possible of altering the decision?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There are difficulties arising in some cases through the different systems of currency. Besides that, it would necessitate considerable varieties of stamps being stocked at a great number of offices. I think the purpose the hon. Member has in view is really served by the system of Imperial postal orders and reply coupons throughout the Empire.

  New Forest (Deer).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, whether he is aware that, in or about the year 1851, Her late Majesty signified her intention to give directions for the extinction or removal of the deer within the New Forest and to consent to the extinguishment of the right of the Crown to stock and keep the forest stocked with deer; that, in consideration of such consent and undertaking, it was agreed that in lieu of such right the Crown should be empowered to enclose

  1371
  land in the New Forest to the extent of 10,000 acres in addition to the 6,000 acres then already enclosed; that these terms were subsequently embodied in an Act of Parliament, by which it was directed that within two years from the passing thereof the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should cause to be removed all the deer within the New Forest, and if he will say whether such direction was ever in fact carried out; whether he is aware that deer, both red and fallow, are now preserved in the New Forest, contrary to the provisions of such Act, for the purposes of hunting and shooting; whether a number of red deer were recently imported into the forest by the Master of the Deer Hounds; and, if so, whether this was done with the knowledge of the Deputy Surveyor; and if he will state the number of deer now within the forest, both red and fallow deer, respectively, according to the latest report of the deputy surveyor; whether any steps have been taken to verify the figures given in such report with regard to the numbers of deer within the forest; whether any account is kept of the number of such deer annually shot or killed in hunting; and whether he will undertake either to see that the law is obeyed according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament or introduce legislation to repeal it?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Lord of the Treasury): I am aware of the provisions of the New Forest (Deer Removal) Act, 1851. An enquiry into the operation of that Act was made by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and I refer the hon. Member to the Report, dated 9th July, 1868, of that Committee, where he will find it stated that the deer had accordingly been removed or destroyed. As regards the existence of deer in the Forest at the present day, it would be practically impossible to keep the Forest permanently free from deer, because the deer range over a vast area, much of which is in private ownership, and not controlled by the Crown, and they certainly move to and fro. It is, however, not the case that deer are preserved in the New Forest. On the contrary, they are killed down both by hunting and shooting. No red or other deer have been imported into the Forest with the Deputy Surveyor's knowledge. There are no means of estimating the number of deer in the Forest. Returns are kept of deer killed.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Will the advisers of the Crown consider the propriety of restoring to the forest the 10,000 acres that were enclosed, seeing that the consideration has failed, owing to the failure of the Crown to carry out its part of the contract?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I will convey that intimation to my right, hon. Friend.
  Mr. SANDERS: Has any complaint been received from the inhabitants of the Forest as to the existence of the deer?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Not so far as I am aware.
  Mr. FELL: Are not the 10,000 acres which have been enclosed available for afforestation?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: Would it not destroy the amenities of the New Forest as a national playground to have these 10,000 acres enclosed?
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: Are licences issued every year for a pecuniary consideration for the hunting of the deer?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Not for hunting.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the amount of the capital sums invested to yield the Income Tax returns collected under each of the Schedules C and D as given in Sessional Paper 233 of year 1910, plus any sums under the same schedules outstanding at the close of the financial year 1909–10, and since collected for Great Britain and Ireland, respectively?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the amount, of the capital sums for which he asks.

  Tax Collection.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount of taxes collected, and from what sources, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, by Government officers and applied to local or other purposes without being paid into the Exchequer; the purposes to which they are applied in each country; whether there are any non-tax revenues similarly dealt with; and, if so, will he give a like return of their collection and application?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Apart from the local taxation licences in England and Wales referred to in Section 6 of the Finance Act, 1908 (as amended by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the Revenue Act, 1911) which in certain cases are collected by the Post Office on behalf of county councils, no Imperial taxes are now collected by Government officers and applied to local or other purposes without being paid into the Exchequer in any part of the United Kingdom. The amount collected by the Post Office on behalf of county councils in England and Wales in 1910–11 was £1,670,000. The expression "non-tax Revenue" is used to denote moneys paid into the Exchequer other than the proceeds of taxation. These receipts are of so Miscellaneous a character as to make a category of similar receipts not payable to the Exchequer incapable of definition, but, speaking generally, no moneys are received by Government officers and accounted for directly to local authorities except the proceeds of the local taxation licences to which I have already referred.

  Customs Collectors.
  Captain O'NEILLasked whether, according to the existing classification of Customs collectors, the thirty junior collectors would, in the ordinary course, unless debarred by age, advance in turn, and without further examination, to the highest grade of collector, on the occurrence of the necessary vacancies; and, whether in the classification fixed, or to he fixed, for the combined Customs and Excise service, steps have been, or will be, taken to ensure, so far as the junior Customs collectors are concerned, that their rank as collector shall be retained during any necessary period of redundancy; that they shall receive appointment to the vacancies, as they arise, in the new collector grade; and that, until their appointment to the new collector grade, they shall receive compensation for the retardation of their promotion?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Under the existing classification duly qualified junior Customs collectors are eligible for selection for promotion to higher collector-ships without examination. Pending the issue of the Report of the Customs and Excise Amalgamation Committee, I am unable to make any statement in regard to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

  Returning Officers' Vouchers.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether the accounts and vouchers of returning officers at Parliamentary elections in Ireland are subject to audit by any public authority except a court; if he will explain why bogus accounts and vouchers are never disallowed except in an action; and whether the returning officer at the last Parliamentary election in North Westmeath will be required to produce his accounts and vouchers forthwith for examination?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): Under the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875 (38 and 39 Vic., c. 84) and amending Acts, there are abundant provisions at the instance of the person liable for payment, for the audit and taxation of returning officers' accounts, even including an appeal to the superior courts. So far as I know, there is no other audit. I have no information about the North Westmeath case referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  Longford Licensing Sessions.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the licensing quarter sessions for the county of Longford on Monday, 24th April; whether he is aware that the licence application of Mrs. Maria Beglan was peremptorily adjourned on that day by the county court judge in defiance of the fact that six magistrates on the bench were in favour of granting the same; and whether in such cases in future the Clerk of the Crown and Peace will be directed, when it appears to him that a majority of the justices are in favour of granting the licence, to issue his certificate to that effect without further delay?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am informed that there was an equity suit pending regarding the licensed house, and in order that the questions arising in that suit might first be determined, I understand the licensing application was adjourned for four days, from 24th April to 28th April. The magistrates sitting next to the judge, I am informed, left the matter in his hands, and it was not until the order was announced that one of the magistrates, whose presence until then the judge had not observed, made the objection referred to. The case was disposed of on 28th April, and the licence granted.

  1375
  It is the duty of the Clerk of the Crown and Peace to obey the court's orders, and the Government has no authority to give directions in the matter.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is he aware that the county court judge who gave the licence four days later expressly said that he would not be worried by having magistrates on the bench with him?

  Diseases of Animals Act (Inspection).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the case of William Taylor, who was convicted at the Hull Police Court on or about 2nd May last of cruelty to a mare by causing it to be travelled in an unfit state; whether he is aware that evidence was then given that the animal was walking on her heels and was in the greatest pain, both feet being full of inflammation and there being a hole through one foot; whether, nevertheless, after the animal had been stopped by the inspector of the Hull and East Riding Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and before the hearing of the charge, the mare was passed by the inspector appointed by the Board of Agriculture under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1910, as fit to be sent abroad and was actually shipped to a foreign country; whether at the hearing of the case the stipendiary magistrate expressed the opinion that the inspection on behalf of the Board was practically worthless; and whether he will take steps to institute a proper system of inspection at this and other ports in order that the intention of the Legislature may be duly carried into effect?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The facts connected with the original prosecution are correct so far as they go, but are not complete, seeing that the stipendiary, after hearing the explanation of the veterinary inspector employed by the Board and of the shipment officer, stated in open court for the information of the Press that he was satisfied that the examination made by Colonel Longhurst was no perfunctory examination, but a careful one. There is now considerable doubt whether the mare examined by Colonel Longhurst and exported was in fact the same mare as that to which the legal proceedings related. Such evidence as is available goes to show
  1376
  that it cannot have been the same mare, but it is not probable that any absolute evidence of this will come to light.

  Valuation (Land for Small Holdings).
  Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can arrange with the Inland Revenue authorities to secure that the valuation figures made for the purposes of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, may be available for arriving at the proper valuation of properties required for small holdings?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have been in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue, and I am informed by them that their policy hitherto has been to decline to disclose such value except to persons interested in the land or authorised by persons so interested.
  Mr. KING: Is it not obvious that those persons who are prospective buyers of small holdings are very much interested in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I think my hon. Friend will see that that is a question for Debate. I only informed him of the answer I have received from the Inland Revenue.

  Sale of Food and Drugs Act (Milk).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that milk-producers in the North of England are being continuously convicted under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act for selling milk below the standard of 3 per cent. of butter fat, in face of the most conclusive proof that such milk was the unadulterated produce of the cow; and whether, in view of this method of administering the Act and the sale of milk regulations, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I believe there is such a feeling as that stated by the hon. Member and to which expression was given lately at a meeting of farmers at Darlington. I understand that the President of the Board will shortly receive a deputation from this meeting in regard to this matter.

  Bee Pests.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the bee pest has spread to certain districts in

  1377
  Perthshire; and what steps he is prepared to take to deal with it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I have seen in the Press that disease exists in Blair Atholl and elsewhere, but only one report has been made to the Board, and in that case the bees have been destroyed. If the other owners of diseased bees will communicate with the Board, their cases shall be investigated.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if it was last year that this disease spread in the districts he mentioned, and all hives were destroyed then, so that it is believed that the disease was stamped out, and the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish office have given every assistance in the matter?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I believe what the Noble Lord states is correct with reference to his district.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether, owing to the increase of this disease all over the country, there is a very serious danger to fruit growers, owing to the lack of pollenation next year?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I ant aware that that is a very serious matter, and the Board are exercising all their powers to stamp out the disease as far as possible.

  Naval Interpreters.
  Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would enlarge the class of those eligible to qualify for the grade of interpreter under Section 9, Article 343 et seq., of the King's Admiralty Regulations, for example, by opening it up to naval writers; and whether he would confer upon classes other than those enumerated in Article 343 the benefits of Article 346 (b)?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): This question has been considered by the Admiralty on previous occasions, when names were called for from the Fleet of any writers who had a knowledge of a foreign language, and their names were noted. The numbers affected were so small that it was not considered desirable to make any extension in the existing regulations for interpreters.

  British Subjects (Protection by Foreign Warships).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty for any instances or occasions since let January, 1906, where British
  1378
  subjects, in the absence of a British warship, have received assistance or protection from foreign warships, and particulars of the same; whether he will state if there is any instance or occasion where a British Minister or consul has applied to the captain of a German warship for protection and assistance, and particulars of same; and whether he will state what provision is being made by the Admiralty for further cruisers to protect British subjects and interests in British Colonies, possessions, and Protectorates, and the great trade routes of our mercantile marine vessels?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first two parts of the question, the Admiralty have not got the information asked for by +he hon. Member; and as regards the third part, the present provision is considered adequate.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has never heard of Jamaica, St. Lucia, and Zanzibar?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes; on frequent occasions.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that those occasions were most injurious to British prestige?

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the number of workmen employed upon the new dock works, Rosyth, on 8th April, 1911, mechanics, navvies, and labourers separately, and the number whose wages were 5d. per hour and under on that date?
  Mr. McKENNA: The numbers were:—Mechanics, 365; navvies, 516; labourers, 150; total, 1,031. The number employed whose wages were 5d. per hour and under was 398; this includes boys. No man employed on the works is paid less than 5d. per hour.

  Admiralty and Royal Dockyard Writers.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the conditions governing the promotion of writers from the second grade to the first grade at the Admiralty and Royal dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: Promotion from the second to the first grade is made after selection by the Board, but a writer cannot be promoted to the first grade at a home yard or at the Admiralty until he reaches the maximum of the second grade.

  Foreign-made Hydrogen (Supply to Navy).
  Mr. BIRDasked why no restriction was imposed as to the origin of the hydrogen contracted for the Navy by Messrs. Vickers and Company, whilst the Admiralty knew that a Wolverhampton company was prepared to supply all their requirements with British-made hydrogen?
  Mr. McKENNA: This was an experimental airship, and it was desirable to give the contractors as free a hand as possible.
  Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman stipulate in future that all contracts for the supply of hydrogen for the Navy shall be of British manufacture?
  Mr. McKENNA: Until I am acquainted with the extent and possibilities of the home supply I should be unwilling to give any undertaking of the sort asked for.
  Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give encouragement to British manufacturers to undertake the necessary outlay to produce hydrogen by ensuring the necessary orders?
  Mr. McKENNA: That must depend entirely upon various circumstances, including price. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to put up the price of hydrogen against the Admiralty.
  Mr. BIRDasked if the hydrogen supplied from abroad for the Navy was contained in cylinders that did not comply with British regulations, and that, as a consequence, these foreign supplies have to be conveyed by road in motor vans, as the railways refuse to carry them?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have no official information on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's question; and I would refer him to the reply I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on Monday last.

  Children in Workhouses.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether 9,223 healthy children are still maintained in the workhouses; and whether he is taking any and, if so, what steps to induce those local authorities who have not adopted the scattered home or some similar system to bring their practice into accord with modern views?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The figure given by my hon. Friend relates to the 1st July, 1910. Since then, the question of removing children from the workhouse, which was pressed upon boards of guardians in the circular which I issued in June last, has been freely considered by them, and many proposals for the establishment of scattered homes have been submitted to and approved by my Department. I hope that the corresponding figure for this year may show a marked decrease.

  Chinese Sailors (Port of London).
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of Chinese discharged from ships arriving in the Port of London in 1910; what provision is made for the reception of Chinese sailors; whether there is any receiving house for Asiatics employed on and about ships in or near the docks; and whether any of the Chinese so entering the country remain permanently in London?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): No record has been kept of the number of Chinese discharged from ships arriving in the port of London in 1910. I am not aware that any special provision is made for the reception of Chinese sailors. There are, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a number of boarding houses for Chinese, and there is also a Home for Asiatics. I am unable to say whether any of the Chinese discharged from ships in this country remain permanently in London.

  Railway Facilities (Kildare).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the last fair day of Kildare, 24th April, there were no railway wagons in Kildare until 10.40 a.m.; that over 600 pigs had to be kept waiting on the roadway leading to the railway station until 2 p.m. owing to the scarcity of wagons; that it was 5.30 p.m. before the special train started from Kildare; that the thirty miles journey to Dublin was not completed until 9 p.m., when it was too late to ship the pigs; and whether the Board of Trade will take steps to enforce compliance by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company with the regulations, and thus protect traders and the public from the loss and inconvenience arising from the negligence and default complained of?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Board of Trade have asked for the company's observations on my hon. Friend's question, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman also communicate with the inspectors of the Transit Department of the Board of Agriculture in Ireland and see if they are performing their duties?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should like notice of that.

  Income Tax Payment (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether he can furnish any information as to the number of cases in Scotland in which costs have been incurred by payers of Income Tax who delayed payment until 30th April or earlier date when costs were exigible?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I am unable to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.
  Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that costs have been incurred in Scotland, while in London payment of taxes is being postponed?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: No, Sir.

  Westminster Abbey (Insurance against Fire).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has now increased the number of firemen on duty at the Abbey; and if he can now state what is the sum for which the building is insured against fire and tempest?
  TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The number of firemen has been increased and four are now engaged, two by day and two by night. I am informed that the Dean and Chapter insure the Abbey and its contents for £50,000; and that the insurance office, being satisfied with the precautions taken, requires no extra premium in consequence of the works now proceeding. As no amount of insurance could compensate for the destruction of the Abbey, the precautions against fire are the essential point.

  Appointment of Justices (Scotland).
  Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate if ho will state in what counties in Scotland have committees been set up to assist the
  1382
  Lord Chancellor in the appointment of justices of the peace; were these committees chosen by the Lord Chancellor or by the lords-lieutenant of the counties, or by whom; of how many do these committes consist; and is it the intention of the Government that local Members of Parliament should make representations to these committees, who will put the representations before the Lord Chancellor?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The counties in which Committees have been set up are Clackmannan, Fife, Kirkcudbright, Nairn, Stirling, county of City of Edinburgh, county of city of Glasgow, and Inverness, which is, however, under reconsideration. The numbers vary from four to seven. The members of committees have been chosen by the Lord Chancellor, in a very few cases upon personal knowledge, in general upon communication both with the Lord-Lieutenant and others. Anyone can make representations to the committees, and the committees can make any representations to the Lord Chancellor.
  Captain MURRAY: Who are the "others," with whom, according to the right hon. Gentleman's answer, the Lord Chancellor has been in communication?
  Mr. URE: Other gentlemen.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: Who are the clerks of the advisory committees to whom we are to make our communications?
  Mr. URE: Communications had better be addressed to the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: Shall we get the names of these advisory committees?
  Mr. URE: Yes.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, when the names of these advisory committees have been finally settled by the Lord Chancellor, of authorising their publication?
  Mr. URE: That will be considered.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Wilt the right hon. Gentleman ask if the Lord Chancellor's recommendation that Members of Parliament should not be allowed to recommend candidates for justices might be carried out?
  Mr. URE: I am not aware of that.
  Captain CRAIG: Would it not be possible to make all Radicals magistrates, and start a new order for administering justice in the country?

  Census Returns (Scotland).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what are the figures showing the number of persons in Scotland employed as agricultural labourers and farm servants for each of the last five Census periods, including the recent Census, and indicating the increase or decrease for each period?
  Mr. URE: The reports of the Registrar-General for Scotland upon each Census give the particulars desired by my hon. Friend, but, so far as the recent Census is concerned, it is impossible to give them in anticipation of the general tabulation of the Returns, which will be embodied in due course in the final report.

  Sheriff Court Districts.
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that over three years ago a memorial was presented to the Secretary for Scotland by the Fife and Kinross Miners' Association praying for a rearrangement of the sheriff court districts in Fifeshire, in view of the fact that the present districts were fixed many years ago, but are now, and for many years have been, owing to the development of mining in Fife, out of date, causing loss of time and expense to the public, and particularly to the mining community; that this application was concurred in by the Fife and Kinross Coalowners' Association and by other public representative bodies; that certain inquiries were held by Lord Shaw, then Lord Advocate; that there was a further inquiry by the sheriff of the county, Sheriff Morison; will he say whether reports have been received as a result of these inquiries; if so, what is the substance of the reports; and whether the Secretary for Scotland proposes to do anything with a view to meeting the necessities of the cases?
  Mr. URE: Substantially the facts are as stated in the question. At the instance of the Secretary for Scotland an inquiry was held by the sheriff of the county, who has recently submitted a scheme for the rearrangement of the sheriff court districts in the county. The scheme proposed involves certain adjustments, the expediency and practicability of which are now receiving consideration.

  Legal Appointments (Scotland).
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked whether it is the intention of the Government to take action on the Report of the Depart-
  1384
  mental Committee appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire into minor legal appointments in Scotland?
  The LORD ADVOCATE: The Report is at present under consideration, but I am not as yet in a position to announce the intentions of the Government in the matter.

  Aliens Act.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Report of His Majesty's inspector under the Aliens Act for the year 1910 will be in the hands of Members?
  The UNDER - SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): The Report is in an advanced stage of preparation, and is being pressed forward with all possible speed. The inspector hopes to submit it to me very shortly, and I shall present it to Parliament without delay.
  Mr. FELLasked if there is any agreement or arrangement with the shipowners who bring alien emigrants into this country that they will take them back again at their own expense if the emigrants are for any reason rejected on arrival, even if such aliens have been allowed to land pending the decision as to their being undesirables or not?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Under the Aliens Act, 1905, in all cases in which an alien immigrant is refused leave to land it rests with the master of the ship which brought him to this country to dispose of him after such refusal.
  Mr. FELL: Does that apply where they have been allowed to land?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. FELLasked if any search is now made in the baggage of aliens arriving in this country at scheduled ports for Mauser rifles, pistols, daggers, stilettos, and other weapons; whether they are confiscated if discovered; and if the aliens trying to introduce them are pronounced to be undesirable and are refused permission to land?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There is no power in the Aliens Act, 1905, for immigration officers to search the baggage of alien immigrants, and the possession of arms by any such aliens is not among the considerations which, under Section 1 (3) of

  1385
  the Act, may subject him to refusal of leave to land as an undesirable immigrant. I hope this matter may be dealt with when the law is amended.
  Mr. FELL: Is not their baggage examined by the Customs officers, or by someone at any rate?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not examined under the 1905 Act.

  Shops Bill.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the term shop assistants includes cashiers and book-keepers in the employment of coal merchants, or of similar distributing agents?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Bill will apply to any premises where retail trade is carried on, but only those employés who are engaged in connection with the serving of customers, the receipt of orders, and the despatch of goods would be regarded as assistants. Whether any person is so engaged will be a question of fact in each case, but generally I should say that the clerical staff engaged in the keeping of books and similar work would not come within the Bill.

  Dudley Sessions (Release of Prisoner).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked under what authority the prison governor acted in releasing Elizabeth Timmins two days after she had been sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment at Dudley quarter sessions?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Having further considered the point, I am advised that the governor was wrong in law. Steps will be taken to prevent similar mistakes in future.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say who was the proper authority to act under these circumstances?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot say.

  Non-Payment of Poor Rate (West Riding Justices).
  Mr. FRANCEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the case of William Barker, of Kirkhamgate, near Wakefield, an old man in receipt of poor relief, who was committed to prison by an order of the West Riding justices at Wakefield on 3rd March for non-payment of poor rate amounting to £1 5s. 4d.; and Whether he will take any action in the matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have received a representation with regard to this case, but can only say that, as it is a case of civil debt, I have no power to take action.

  Motor Cars (Regulations).
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department has power to reduce the speed of motor-cars by order; if so, what is that power and how often has it been put in force by his Department; and can he extend it to Scotland?
  Mr. BURNS: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, perhaps I may refer to my reply to his question of the 5th April last. The Local Government Board have issued fifteen Orders under Section 8 of the Motor Car Act, prohibiting or restricting the driving of motor cars on specified highways, and 100 Orders under Section 9 of the Act, limiting the speed to ten miles an hour. In the application of the Act to Scotland, powers similar to those given to the Local Government Board are conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland.
  Mr. WATT: Can the Department take the initiative, or have they to wait until some other public body asks them to take action?
  Mr. BURNS: The Board invariably act after action has been initiated by the county councils.

  Poor Law Administration.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked what is the cost of Poor Law administration, including interest on loans, for the last financial year?
  Mr. BURNS: The figures for the last financial year will not be available for some time to come. The latest published figures show an expenditure of £14,717,000 on the relief of the poor in England and Wales.

  Income Tax (Repayments).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether upwards of 7,500 repayments of Income Tax were made in March, 1911, without examination, as against an average of 500 for the same month in previous years; and whether the number dropped to a much smaller figure in April?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): No repayments are made without examination of the claims. Inquiry into certain points con-

  1387
  nected with the claims is, as previously explained, postponed until later in the year when the pressure of work is somewhat lighter, but the nature of the postponed inquiries is such that it is very rarely found that the title to or amount of the repayment is affected as a result of the inquiries. The number of provisional repayments in March and April, 1911 was 7,500 and 13,575 respectively. The number of repayments in March, 1910, was 625, a number considerably below that of the preceding year, owing to the claims being deferred pending payment of the Income Tax. It is hoped that this system will put an end to the not unjustifiable complaint of taxpayers as to the delay in repayment.

  National Insurance Bill.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table any reports made to him by the officers and actuaries of the great friendly societies in respect of invalidity assurance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The officers and actuaries of the great friendly societies were not called upon to make reports upon the Health Insurance Scheme, though, of course, the persons from whom I received informal and confidential advice included many who held such positions.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that a sufficient proportion of the officers in the Central Insurance Department shall be possessed of actuarial qualifications?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The qualifications of officers to be appointed to the Insurance Department will, of course, be considered in the light of their respective duties.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if, in calculating the wages of agricultural labourers in order to ascertain the contribution payable by their employers, an average of their wages throughout the year will be taken, or if the calculation will be based on each week separately?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Bill contemplates the actual daily wage being taken, and makes no provision for averaging over a year.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any estimate of the increased cost of production under the new scheme for providing against sickness and unemployment; and whether he proposes to tax competing imports to the same extent?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: German experience shows that organised provision for the health of the working classes produces increased efficiency. I have no doubt a similar result will be experienced when the demoralising anxieties of unemployment are mitigated. If, as I hope, these influences more than counterbalance the burden which we are asking employers to bear, the cost of production will be diminished rather than increased. I need hardly add that even if the contrary were the case the expedient which the hon. Member suggests would, in my opinion, do absolutely nothing for industry as a whole to counteract the tendency which the hon. Member fears.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as our own people are paying extra taxes, or may have to pay extra taxes, beyond what they already pay, why foreigners should pay nothing at all on their competing goods using the same market?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is raising a very wide question, which I certainly could not answer in the course of the thirty or forty seconds allowed to me for a reply. I think the premises of the hon. Gentleman are quite wrong. He is assuming that there will be new burdens on industry, whereas we consider this scheme a means of increasing the efficiency of the industry of the country.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask why it is that no hon. Gentleman on the other side has ever answered that question?
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his estimate of the cost of production is founded on any figures or statistics, or simply on hopes and wishes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Quite the reverse. As I have stated to the House, I have made careful inquiry of all the great German employers—there being the best example of this kind of thing in Germany—and they all answer, without exception, that as a matter of wages insurance has paid them. They are paying twice as much as I am asking British employers to pay

  1389
  in this country. In spite of that they are supporting a scheme of increased payments.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the effect of Part I. of the National Insurance Bill will be, as regards all their future members, to make the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, the Ancient Order of Foresters, and the other great registered friendly societies, the mere channel for the organisation and distribution of the benefits provided for by the Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are asking the great friendly societies to undertake very heavy responsibilities under the National Insurance Bill, responsibilities which include by far the greater part of the functions which they now perform in connection with their existing work. In return we are offering them a high degree of autonomy. The State will only interfere for the purposes of collecting the contributions, holding the reserve funds, paying the State grants, and exercising a general supervision which will hardly be felt by a thoroughly well conducted society.

  Super-tax Collection.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether any instructions were issued or any suggestions made to the Special Commissioners to delay the issue of demands for the payment of Super-tax for the year ending 31st March, 1911 until 31st March, 1911, or a later date; if so, by whom the same were issued or made; and whether any such instructions were issued or suggestions made with his approval or sanction, or with that of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue or any member of that Board?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and, therefore, the second and third parts do not arise.

  Veterinary Surgeons' Allowance.
  Mr. GOLDSMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any communication on the subject of extending the allowance granted to medical practitioners in Section 86 (4) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to duly qualified veterinary surgeons; and whether he has come to any decision?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have received representations from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on this subject.
  1390
  The position of a veterinary surgeon is by no means parallel to that of a physician, and I fear I cannot extend the allowance in the manner suggested.

  Imperial and Local Taxation (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked what are the precise terms of reference to the Departmental Committee upon the relations between Imperial and local taxation; and whether they include consideration of the principle, as applicable to rural as well as urban areas, of taxation of unimproved site values as an alternative to the system of rating annual values?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The terms of reference are as follows:—"To inquire into the changes which have taken place in the relations between Imperial and local taxation since the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in 1901, to examine the several proposals made in the Reports of that Commission, and to make recommendations on the subject for the consideration of His Majesty's Government with a view to the introduction of legislation at an early date." It will be for the Committee to decide what questions they will consider.

  Reported Landing of Arms and Ammunition in Ulster.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been called to certain paragraphs which have appeared in the English provincial newspapers to the following effect: "Trustworthy information reached Belfast yesterday that the Irish Police have ascertained that a cargo of arms and ammunition was recently landed at one of the small fishing ports in South Down. The gun-running vessel, a small schooner, ostensibly coal-laden from a North of England port, went ashore, the coastguards assisting the crew to land, but later, under cover of darkness, the contraband goods were landed, the ship's boat making several journeys to the stranded vessel?"
  Mr. BIRRELL: Until the hon. Member called my attention to these paragraphs I had heard nothing of the tidings they contain, but on making inquiries I have received the following report from the county inspector:—"No foundation for report. A small schooner, property of James MacVeagh, went ashore twenty

  1391
  yards north-east of Kilkeel pier while proceeding to Annalong to load. She has become a total wreck. No arms landed from her or any other vessel around the coast of this county."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. WALTER LONG: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the order of business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): We propose on
Monday to take the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill; on
Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the Budget; on
Wednesday the Budget Resolutions will be considered; and on
Thursday we will take Supply, beginning with the Army and Navy Votes, and these will be followed by some Votes to be arranged in the usual way.

BILL PRESENTED.
  IMMORAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to persons living on the earnings of prostitution, and certain other persons; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. ANNAN BRYCE; supported by Mr. King, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Black, Mr. Rainy, Mr. William Harvey, Mr. Burt, Sir George White, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Fen-wick, and Sir Robert Balfour; to be read a second time upon Friday, 19th May, and to be printed.

  SUPPLY.— [7th Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT ESTIMATES, 1911–12 [Progress.]

  INCOME TAX COLLECTION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £79,738, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,
  1392
  1912, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
  NOTE.—£26,000 has been voted on account.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I rise to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000 in respect of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think attention ought to be called to the action of the Treasury in seeking to evade an Act of Parliament, and, by so doing, to deprive the Sinking Fund of certain sums of money which, in the ordinary course of events, should have gone to that Fund. In order to point out to the Committee the extreme gravity of the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may read an extract from the Act of 1875 which has been infringed. Chapter 45, Section 4, says:—
  "The Treasury shall within fifteen days after the expiration of every financial year prepare an account of the public income and expenditure of the United Kingdom according to the actual receipt and issue of moneys in the Exchequer account in the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland during the said financial year, which shall show either the surplus of such income or the excess of such expenditure during the said year."
  Then it goes on to say:—
  "A copy of such account certified by the Controller and Auditor-General shall be laid before the House of Commons within one month after the expiration of the financial year, if Parliament be then sitting,"
  And so on. The importance of that Section is that it ensures that there shall be a correct estimate made of the income and expenditure of the year. If that Section is evaded, as I hope to be able to show it has been, the result would be that if, unfortunately, we should have an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer—I have no wish in saying that to make personal insinuations against anyone—it would be in his power to over-estimate the expenditure of the year, and by so doing to secure for himself a considerable surplus at the end of a financial year. That surplus would not go to the Sinking Fund, as is intended by this Act, but would remain in his power and enable him to bring in a Bill to do certain things under the pretence that they would not cost money, which the House

  1393
  would not have sanctioned if they knew that afterwards these things would mean the imposition of fresh taxation; or it would enable him towards the close of a Parliament to bring in a measure which would not impose taxation, but would give certain bribes to certain classes of the community with the money obtained in this improper manner from the previous financial year.
  Our predecessors in this House, and the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in the office which he now holds, attached great importance to this provision, and evidently if they had considered that there was going to be any juggling by which taxpayers were requested to postpone their payments in a given year in order to produce a sum of money which will not be accounted for in the return to be prepared by the Controller and Auditor-General at the end of the financial year, they would have made some provision by which money due in one year which was not collected until the next should still be devoted to the purposes of the Sinking Fund. In those days it was never contemplated that such action would be taken. Consequently there is a loophole in the Act which has enabled the course which I have indicated to be taken. If I am correct in what I have stated—and I happen to be supported in this view by eminent financial authorities who are Radicals, and who even stood within the last few years as Radical candidates—everyone must condemn in the most emphatic manner the action of the Treasury in sending round to the railway companies, and so evading paying into the Sinking Fund as they should have done. The attention of the House of Commons was first called to this fact by a question which I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 3rd April last. I asked him "whether he can explain the action of the Inland Revenue in sending round to the offices of the railway companies and suggesting that that portion of the Income Tax due by them in March should not be paid, but held over until April?" His answer was: "I much regret that owing to the mistake of a subordinate officer certain railway companies which are usually asked to pay on 30th March taxes not due under the Special Taxes Management Act until 20th March were this year asked to defer payment till April. The instructions to the chairman of the Board were to receive payment on 30th March."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 3rd April, 1911, col. 1815.]
  1394
  It is to be noticed that the right hon. Gentleman made no denial that these things had been done. He only said that it was owing to the mistake of a subordinate officer. On 6th April the right hon. Gentleman was asked some further questions upon this subject. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked what instructions were issued to the collectors of Income Tax during the month of March. The right hon. Gentleman said that the collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter. And then he went on to say that he knew of no Government official in the House of Commons who was responsible for the action of the district commissioners. Now, the Tax Revenue Act of 1880, shows that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was incorrect, because that Act, in chapter 19, Section 13, provides that the Board shall have all necessary powers and authority, and the collectors of Inland Revenue, surveyors, and all other officers or persons who shall be employed in the execution of such Act, or any Tax Acts, shall observe and follow the orders, instructions, and directions of the Board, and in the definition Clause Board is defined to mean the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the time being, or any two of them.
  4.0 P.M.
  Therefore it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman in giving that answer was making a statement which was incorrect, and, without wishing to make any personal charge against him, I cannot help saying that all the information which we have been able to extract from him was like taking a tooth from the mouth of a patient. We had to extract it from him with the utmost difficulty, and it gave us the impression—I do not know whether I am wrong in saying so—that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to impart information, and that he was doing his best to answer the questions in a manner and in a way which would not give the information which we, as Members of the House of Commons, were entitled to have from him. I will now for a moment deal with the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman on the 3rd April. He said the mistake was that of a subordinate official, but my Noble Friend the Member for South Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton), who I am glad to see in his place, as chairman of the Great Eastern, Railway Company, through the officials of that railway,

  1395
  has shown me a letter which he received from this subordinate official, who called upon the accountant of the railway company, and who I find is Mr. Grasemann. I have looked up in Boyle's Court Guide, and I find that Mr. Grasemann is one of the six Special Commissioners of the Inland Revenue; he has a salary of between £800 and £1,000—a salary very similar in amount to that which Sir Ernest Soares is going to have. Can anybody say that Mr. Grasemann is a subordinate official? That is not my idea of a subordinate official—a gentleman who is one of the six Special Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. I put down a question later, and so did my Noble Friend the Member for South Kensington, but they unfortunately could not be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then, to my regret, owing to ill-health, was unable to be present, and consequently we only got a written answer.
  That written answer my Noble Friend has kept at my request, and I believe still has it. It was to the effect that the request was made to Mr. Grasemann by the Chairman of the Inland Revenue—that is, Sir Robert Chalmers. Now we come to this—that the request was made by Sir Robert Chalmers to Mr. Grasemann, who certainly cannot be called a subordinate official. I hope the Committee will bear that in mind, because when we get a little further—namely, to April 20th—some further questions were asked, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:—
  "It is a little difficult to explain to the House how the official misunderstood his orders."
  I am not surprised at that. I think that is the first candid admission we had from the right hon. Gentleman.
  "The instructions, as I understand, given orally were that payments due by these Companies should be paid on or by the 30th March. For some reason or other the officials misunderstood that and chose to consider that as meaning April."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1911, col. 1025].
  Here we have Sir Robert Chalmers and Mr. Grasemann, and Sir Robert said to Mr. Grasemann, "Will you go to the eight principal railway companies in London and inform them that they need not pay the Income Tax due on the 20th March until later in March?" Mr. Grasemann—misunderstanding the instructions—these having been given orally, takes March to mean early in April. I cannot conceive how, even if it was one office boy telling another, that such a misunderstanding should have arisen, and certainly not in
  1396
  the case of two such eminent gentlemen as Sir Robert Chalmers and Mr. Grasemann. My hon. Friend (Mr. JoynsonHicks) asked a question as to how the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had found that his instructions were misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary (Mr. Hobhouse) said:—
  "The first I learned of it, and I believe the first news the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had of it, was the question put to me by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1911, col. 1026].
  I put that question on the 3rd April, and how on earth the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, if he did not know of the matter until he saw my question, could give instructions orally to Mr. Grasemann to go and collect the tax on the 30th March I do not understand. That seems to me one of the most extraordinary answers in one of the most complicated incidents that have ever arisen during the time I have had the honour of a seat in this House. Later on a question was asked as to which of the railway companies this request was addressed, and we were informed that it was made to the eight great railway companies in London. I do not think I need quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, because I am sure what I have said will be taken as accurate, but if there should be any doubt I can afterwards give the quotations. I asked a question as to why these eight railway companies were chosen, and I was told by the Financial Secretary that they were in London, and that it was so very much easier to send round to them an oral communication than to write. I asked why it was not possible to send to a company like the North Eastern Railway Company, one of the chief companies, and I was told that they would have had to write in that case. It seemed to be thought that there was no use in communicating unless communication was made orally. An oral message is rather difficult to prove as to whether or not it has been given correctly or correctly understood; but if you send a letter there you have the matter in black and white, and if any question arises upon it, then it is a little difficult, what shall I say, to wriggle out of the fact of instructions which have been given in black and white. But to show that the Department over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presides with so much ability, has not altogether lost the use of the pen, I may mention that a letter was sent through the post to my Noble Friend, the

  1397
  Member for South Kensington, who has been of very great use in this matter. The letter was sent to the company, of which he is the chairman, and it was dated 6th or 7th March, I forget which. I asked my Noble Friend to take particular care of that letter, because I look upon it as an extremely valuable document. He did so, and gave it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who, unfortunately, is not present at the moment; but he has got it in his pocket, and no doubt he will be able to produce it later on. The letter was directed to the Great Eastern Railway Company, and the effect of it was—"please pay your tax due on 20th March as soon as possible." There you have a written letter to the company requesting them to comply with the law. Within two or three days after the railway company of which my Noble Friend is chairman had received that written communication, showing that the art of using a pen had not been lost in the Treasury, there appeared Mr. Grasemann, who orally said:—
  "Oh, do not you take any notice of that you pay your Income Tax in April." I really do not know how that statement is going to be got over, because every word that I have said is absolutely correct. I have here an answer of the Financial Secretary, given on 24th April, and he says:—
  "The eight Railway Companies referred to were approached as being the largest and most important companies, and therefore the largest payers of the tax, which, as I have repeatedly explained to the House, was intended to be collected on the 30th March."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1911, col. 1333.]
  I have taken the precaution to read the newspapers, especially those which contained anything about the collection of Income Taxes, and I quote from the "Morning Post" of 29th April a statement by Mr. Hobhouse, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking at Bristol last night, to the effect that he defended the Government, and said that he had received his share of criticism, but he did not know that it had done him much harm. Instructions were given to the Inland Revenue officials to intimate to certain great railways companies that their Income Tax should be paid by 30th March, but this had been extended to 3rd or 4th April instead of 30th March, and instead of an extension of ten days it became fourteen days. In one of the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman he said that if need be, and if they needed relief, he would extend this period to the railway
  1398
  companies. The railway companies did not need any relief; their share of the tax amounted to £680,000, and the extension of the period of collection from ten days to fourteen days would afford no relief to anybody, even if they were hard up. The right hon. Gentleman said that true a certain amount of revenue, something like half-a-million—afterwards found to be £680,000—was every penny of it collected in 1911. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also made a speech in defence of his action, or rather he did not make a speech, but he was interviewed by a representative of the "Daily Chronicle" on 19th April. Before I read the very interesting interview between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the reporter of the "Daily Chronicle," may I point out to the Committee that the original defence put forward by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that he regarded it as a mistake which had been made. Now just see what the "Daily Chronicle" says:—
  "What the Treasury and Board of Inland Revenue have done is simply to revert to the practice of former years, a practice first deviated from by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, when pressure was applied in the collection of the tax."
  As far as that goes, of course, one has not got the power of obtaining information from the Treasury which is possessed by the right hon. Gentleman; therefore, I do not know whether or not this has never been done before, but even if it has been done before I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that two blacks do not make a white. If this had even been done, I do not care by whom, I should have been equally against it, whether it had been by a Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may say that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire assured me that it had never been done before, and he also stated that the last paragraph of this statement is not correct. The original defence of the Treasury was that this was a mistake which they much regretted. There is not snuck regret about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his interview in the "Daily Chronicle":—
  "We were not in the same need of money in the first three months of this year, and there was no squeezing process."
  That is an admission of all we have said. "There was no squeezing process." Why? Because they were not in need of money. The Treasury are supposed to be the watchdogs who control the whole finances

  1399
  of the Empire. When I point out that the total amounts to some £183,000,000 it will be seen that it is more than ever necessary that the control of the financial business of the country should be in careful and capable hands, who will endeavour to do their utmost to preserve the old traditions of this House, by which this House kept a hand upon the expenditure of the country. If the Treasury is to come forward and seek to evade an Act of Parliament because they are not in need of money, and therefore do not press for it, then I say goodbye to this House or any Committee of this House having any control for the future over the expenditure of this vast amount of money. The right hon. Gentleman in that interview, goes on:—
  "Another strong reason why pressure was not applied—"
  Again admitting that pressure was not applied—
  "was the fact that most of the Income Tax for 1909–10 was only obtaiued in Jane of last year. It would indeed have been a hardship to have recourse to pressure to compel payment of a heavy Income Tax twice in a period of less than nine months."
  Every company, and I believe I am correctly speaking in saying every private individual, begins the year on 1st January and ends it on 31st December. What would it matter to them if they had paid a heavy Income Tax in June, 1910, and paid again in the following year—say on 25th March or 4th April Where would the hardship be? It would be once in the same year, but the difference of the question of fourteen days at the outside. If we take the year as beginning on 1st April and ending again on 1st April, that will bring two payments into that year. And if two payments were avoided in that year, then two payments must come again in the succeeding year, or this process must go on ad infinitum. I venture to say that no more frivolous pretext could be put forward than that the right hon. Gentleman in doing this was mitigating hardship. This was not done in the case of the smaller Income Tax people, because I have letters here pointing out that very rigorous treatment was meted out to them. To the very big companies it did not make the slightest difference whether they paid a fortnight earlier or later. To the Chancellor of the Exchequer it did make a difference, because a large sum of money, amounting to £683,000, came into this year. That means that the Sinking Fund was deprived of that sum and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled
  1400
  to have £680,000 for future purposes which, if he had carried out the law properly, he would not have had. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that interview, further said:—
  "They They are angry because they think the arrears of Income Tax from the past financial year will enable me in my new Budget to meet heavy additional expenditure this year without laying on any fresh taxes."
  I say that that is an admission of everything. It is an admission that the Act has been evaded; it is an admission that it has been evaded with the very idea that I was certain that it had been evaded for, namely, to use the money which ought to go to the reduction of the National Debt for new purposes which are coming on in the following year, and for which the right hon. Gentleman does not want to put new taxation on for fear it might make them a little unpopular. This means that for the first time, or certainly the second time, but I believe the first time, in the history of this great Empire one of the leading Members of the Cabinet has departed from the old traditions of the House and has evaded an Act of Parliament in order to enable him to make his legislation look a little better. If this House and this country is to be governed in that way for the future there is no knowing to what depths we may descend. It would be perfectly impossible for this Committee to control the finances of the country. It will be in the hands of the Cabinet, and if it were represented by an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer he might play "Old Harry" with the income of the country.
  In 1909 the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Budget, and I remember him telling us that he was going to abolish the old Sinking Fund. I rose as soon as the right hon. Gentleman sat down and pointed out the very serious effect that would have upon the finances of the country. Owing to the great outcry that took place in the City amongst people of all political opinions, and in this House amongst all financial Members, the right hon. Gentleman abandoned that proposal. Thus in 1909 the right hon. Gentleman sought to do certain things by legislation, and the House refused to sanction that legislation. Now, by an Administrative Act, he has done what the House refused to allow him to do. I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester had been sitting on the opposite side, and if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been sitting

  1401
  in his old seat, this Committee would have rung with the denunciations in eloquent tones which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have hurled upon Members opposite. I am sorry that this task has fallen upon such a very humble individual as myself, but I can assure the Committee that I have brought this forward not from any party motive. I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say so, and when I tell them that I have brought this forward because I believe honestly and sincerely that unless this sort of thing is checked that the old purity which for the last one hundred years characterised the dealings of our Ministers and of this House with finance will be abandoned, and that we shall open the doors to methods which during the past 150 years have never taken place here, but may possibly have taken place in Spanish-American Republics, and to which only I can liken the man⅓uvres of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. STEEL - MAITLAND: I rise to second what my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London has said. The whole story is really perfectly plain. It merely means that in order to be quite sure to have money enough to finance the current financial year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pilfered the old Sinking Fund of the year that has just closed. It is really a story that is common enough in High Courts of Justice just as in High Courts of Parliament. It means that when one little financial peccadillo proved exceedingly attractive the individual person whose conduct is in question was led on to another. In this case last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having robbed the new Sinking Fund more or less legitimately, is now led on to rob the old Sinking Fund more or less illegitimately. As a matter of fact the whole story and the facts are about as plain as any story could be. The motive for what has been done is admitted when extracted by question and answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and, lastly, the facts are clear from the figures to the Income Tax itself so far as they are coming in for the year under consideration at this minute.
  When any administrative fault of this kind has been committed, a point which is really worthy the consideration of the Committee is the way in which the defence breaks down. If there has been straightforward action the defence is easy and straightforward. In this
  1402
  case there is the extraordinarily edifying phenomenon of the way in which one explanation is given by the Secretary to the Treasury and another by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both, if I may say so, quite absurd in themselves, and destroying one another as well. The explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury is of one kind, and the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is totally different and wholly incompatible with the first. In the first place, when the thing was being done the whole object of the one was to cover it up and, if I may say so, the whole attitude of the other was to brazen it out. It is what we expect and admire from the right hon. Gentleman. The whole attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury in this House was to say 'really there has been no delay; you are making a great fuss about nothing; there is nothing extraordinary in the action of this year, and, in fact, the Income Tax has been collected with quite amazing rapidity.' He has made many statements of that kind. When he was asked by the hon. Member for Cambridge University whether any directions had been given to the collectors to delay the collection of the Income Tax, he replied, "I have no knowledge of it at all." Further, he states that "the demand notes for 1910–11 were actually issued, with few exceptions, by the end of January," showing what speed there had been and that "there was no alteration in any way of the usual practice of sending out Income Tax demands in the usual time." The whole attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury was that there had been no delay of any sort or kind. Then we come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that celebrated interview published in the "Daily Chronicle," not only does the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that there has been delay, but he gloried in it—an attitude entirely different from the Secretary to the Treasury:—
  "What the Treasury and Board of Inland Revenue have done is simply to revert to the practice of former years … We were not in the same need of money, and therefore there was no squeezing process."
  What, I think, the Committee would like to know is which is their defence? Is it true there was no delay, or is it true there was delay and that it was a highly proper and laudable action. Again the Secretary of the Treasury minimised it. He said that it was an entirely local affair. The collection of the Income Tax, assessment and collection, is a matter for the localities, and with which the Exchequer and

  1403
  the Board of Inland Revenue have really nothing to do. Or suppose they have anything to do with it, it is done by a subordinate officer, and so far as it has been done by a subordinate officer then at any rate it is a departmental affair. He would be the last, he said, to shirk his responsibility, but if it is just a Departmental matter the real responsibility lies on the head of the Department, and they themselves have no real responsibility for it at all. Then we turn to the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "Nothing will give me greater pleasure than to have an opportunity of defending my policy in the matter."
  The Chancellor nods assent. We regret and he regrets that the Secretary for the Treasury is not here. Will he defend his colleague's policy in this matter? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give some explanation of the two, because not only are the two defences incompatible, but each when examined by itself breaks down absolutely and hopelessly. Take the line on which the Secretary to the Treasury went. His whole policy was to cover the matter up, to say that they were not responsible, and that, after all, there was no undue delay. How far do the facts bear out the Secretary to the Treasury? Take, first of all, the question of responsibility. We had the whole general rigmarole about the Income Tax being a local matter. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I may explain that the Income Tax is, both in its assessment and in its collection, exclusively a local tax."
  Those are the words of the Secretary to the Treasury. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking a little credit which was not due to himself when he said that it was his policy. The statement of the Secretary to the Treasury is that Income Tax is exclusively a local tax, both in its assessment and in its collection. How far do the facts bear out that statement? So far as the revenue from foreign investments goes, which now amounts to about one-eighth of the revenue on which Income Tax is collected, and about 8 per cent. of the whole revenue assessed to Income Tax, you have a special officer of the Inland Revenue to inspect these matters. Yet we are told that it is exclusively a local tax. I am afraid the Secretary to the Treasury is not very well versed in the facts of his own Department. He seems to think—judging from his answers—that there are just a few towns in the kingdom in which
  1404
  the collection of Income Tax and its assessment is not exclusively local.
  I made it a point to get some of the "few" towns which were just exceptions to the general rule. They include Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Wolverhampton, Cardiff, Portsmouth—nearly all the big towns in the country, except London. And yet we are told that in its assessment and in its collection the Income Tax is exclusively a local tax! Then take the special point of the railway companies. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) asked:—
  "Is it suggested that the Income Tax collectors are acting on their own initiative in postponing the collection of these cheques in regard to the railway companies?"
  The Secretary to the Treasury replied:—
  "The collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter."
  Then we turn to the Income Tax Act:—
  "No assessments shall be made under this Act by the Commissioners for general purposes in respect of the annual value or profits and gains arising from any railway, but in lieu thereof every such assessment shall be made by the Commissioners for special purposes."
  The Commissioners for special purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman should have known, are appointed by the Treasury. The Inland Revenue Commissioners themselves are Special Commissioners, and the Board's own officers collect all the assessments made by the Special Commissioners. And after all this we are told that the collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter. Was ever such a preposterous defence put forward? We all wish the Secretary to the Treasury could have been here to explain it. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make the explanation for him. We have the definite statement in regard to the railway companies that the collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter; we have also the definite statement of the Act of Parliament; and the facts in each case are directly contrary to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury. Take one other point. The whole attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury was, first of all, to prove that they were not responsible; secondly, to show that there was no great delay; and, thirdly, that, payment was delayed over 1st April, at any rate the margin of time was a small one. Therefore the date on which the Income Tax from the railways should have been paid was all important in the

  1405
  matter. Turn to the right hon. Gentleman's answer:—
  "It is the case that railway companies are bound to pay their tax at some date subsequent to 20th March."
  Then turn to the Taxes Management Act:—
  "Railway companies in England or Ireland shall pay the duty of Income Tax under Schedule D by four quarterly payments, namely, on or before 20th June, for the first quarterly payment, on or before the 20th day of September, December, and March in each year, for the second, third, and fourth quarterly payments respectively."
  As a matter of fact, they pay half-yearly, instead of quarterly. But the date is "on or before 20th March." Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain the Secretary to the Treasury's answer that the railway companies are bound to pay their tax at some date subsequent to the 20th March. If there is a difference between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleague, it is the difference between covering it up and brazening it out. We come, in fact, from Joseph Surface to his brother Charles. I hope I am correct in assuming that the statements printed in connection with the interview in Wales are tolerably accurate. On a previous occasion when I quoted a report from a newspaper, ill-luck had dogged the Chancellor's footsteps, and he had been inaccurately reported. I do not wish to do him injustice again, and I hope the report is not inaccurate this time. But it is possible that the "couple of fragrant cigars" with which he regaled the interviewer may have caused some inaccuracy in the report. To use a phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "for pompousness, pretentiousness, and futility" few arguments have exceeded those put forward in regard to this same Income Tax collection in the interview in the "Daily Chronicle." Here is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's account of the matter, and it is entirely different from that of his colleague. In the first place, he
  "reverted to the practice of former years…in not having a squeezing process."
  I thought he took virtue to himself in his last Budget speech for having continued and extended that squeezing process. He goes on to state that—
  "It was a practice first deviated from by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who, when he was at the Exchequer, finding one year that he needed money, got pressure applied in the collection of the tax."
  I hope circumstances will admit of the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire's being here. In his absence I may say I do not believe there is one single grain of foundation whatsoever for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement,
  1406
  and I hope he will withdraw it. I was in the Treasury at the time, and knew what was going on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he made that remark, could have consulted the officials who were there at the time. I believe there is not a single grain of fact in the statement that when the tax was collected rather mere closely shortness of money was in any way responsible for it. Another point to be remembered in this connection is that, even if the collection was then somewhat accelerated, it is one thing to accelerate the collection in order to keep the law, and another thing to delay it in order to break the law. If you accelerate the collection you get the money in as far as possible within the limits by which it ought legally to be paid. In the present case the delay has resulted in causing the law to be broken. Then comes the point of hardship to the taxpayer. My hon. Friend has already quoted the remark about rigorous pressure to compel payment of a heavy Income Tax twice in a period of less than nine months. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that any single taxpayer would have been at all the worse off if the payment of Income Tax by the railway companies have been expedited? The people who would have suffered by the rigorous pressure were the poor unfortunates up in Glasgow, who were distrained upon at the same instant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is generous to the poor and just to all, but he cannot claim that in this particular action—which was his policy, for which he is going to take all credit—he was protecting the poor, seeing that the smaller Income Tax payer was being distrained upon while the railway companies were being allowed to postpone payment, although no shareholder in the railway company would benefit thereby. The whole thing is really plain. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, later on, chooses to ascribe motives, and to say that—
  "From the partisan point of view their anger may be natural, but do not let there be any pretence on the part of these critics of a genuine public interest or concern for the taxpayer."
  Surely he might take a little of that ascription of motive, and apply it elsewhere in this connection. It is so like the ordinary delinquent in a court of justice, who thinks that anybody who discusses his action has a personal or a party animus against him. The reason we object to this practice is, in the first place, that it is extraordinarily bad financing. If there is one good principle of financing it is that when you make

  1407
  large commitments for the future you should make provision for those commitments at the earliest possible date, instead of hypothecating the future without knowing how you are going to find the money. Already the existing financial year is being swollen by arrears from last year. If there was any sound finance in the Chancellor's policy, for which he is going to take full credit, it ought to have been rather to have discounted the fact of those arrears by providing more money by extra taxation, if need be, than by robbing the Old Sinking Fund in order for one year at least to carry on without recourse to taxation. Indeed this is one of the cases where it is far better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be just than generous.
  There is, however, yet one point that lies deeper still—the jerrymandering the whole public administration. It is all of one piece—the whole of the things we have been listening to lately. First hon. Gentlemen opposite job their friends into a place. Perhaps if one should feel some sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one moment, it is that he has got at the head of the Inland Revenue a public official who has been trained in the Civil Service, and who, without question, does not like maladministration. However, that defect may soon be remedied. If the present Government should be in office when a new chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue is appointed, then, no doubt, they will appoint someone whose legal knowledge, acquired during eleven years' retirement from business, will give him a peculiar fitness for the post; or somebody like the other gentleman whose commercial ignorance admirably unfitted him for being a member of the Indian Council. Let us have done with these things. When there are new quantities of officials for new work being appointed, and new administrative departments being formed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government should, before all things, have been zealous to ensure, first of all, that all members of the Civil Service should have every reason to be contented and loyal; and, secondly, that the public should have every reason to rest assured that nothing was done to interfere with the proper administration of a great Government office.
  Mr. FELL: May I add a few remarks to what has been said to show what the effect of these arrangements which have been
  1408
  made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have on the Budget which he is going to introduce next Tuesday. When that Budget is introduced, and we are informed of the estimate of the receipts for the present year, we shall know that those Estimates are wrong. We shall know that the Budget is to a large extent fictitious; that the balance which will be shown is not correct; that £680,000 included in that Budget is money which does not belong to that Budget, but belongs to the old Sinking Fund. It will be wrongly included in the Budget. It is not a fact that £680,000 of that Budget only will be wrong. It is estimated, in addition to this sum which is confessed—which has been dragged out from the Treasury Bench as the amount which was not collected and which ought to have been collected—it is estimated by ordinary current opinion that instead of £680,000 the amount that has not been collected is upwards of £2,000,000. When you consider that our Budget may be incorrect to the extent of £2,000,000, then I say it is a sad day. I do not think such a thing has ever happened before, that the Budget should not be looked upon as a real, straightforward statement of the accounts of the country, but as accounts which have been jerrymandered for some purpose with which we are not now concerned.
  Six hundred and eighty thousand pounds was not collected from the railway companies. There are many other companies, and others to which the same verbal—I will not say instruction, but hints, were given that their cheques for payment for Income Tax were not desired, or were not wanted. I myself know of one case where there was a cheque for £600 ready to be signed on the 30th March. This was in the City of London. However, when the collector called he said it would be perfectly satisfactory if the cheque was handed over in time for the next Board meeting on April 2nd. If we know cases of this sort within our own knowledge, what must be the total sum altogether? Therefore, I think, we shall not be very far wrong if we put at £2,000,000 the sum which, instead of being collected and brought into the fund, will go to swell the balance-sheet of the present year. It is very difficult to explain to ordinary people how it is that the Government can do such things, because in ordinary finance the sums which are due at the end of a particular time credit is taken for them when the accounts are drawn up, and the sums are shown as

  1409
  being an asset of the company, subject to any small loss that there may be upon collection. It is not so with the Government. Many people do not understand that the Government only take credit for certain sums which they have received up to 31st March—that these large sums held over are not taken into account. This gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer an enormous power which is not given to the treasurers of any other institution.
  The only reason I can give for the Government's course of action is that that might be adopted in the case of one of the automatic machine companies. If one of these companies desired to make a balance sheet such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to make for us next week they would collect the money from their boxes all over the country up to the eleventh month; they would not collect for the last month. The accounts naturally would show a less sum than would have been the case for a year, because there would only be eleven months' receipts, and they would show largely diminished profits. The next year thirteen months' receipts would be taken into account—the twelve current months and the month of the preceding year. That is what the Chancellor is going to do. But would that be thought honest finance by any company? It is not finance which should be approved by this House of Commons, or by any country which wishes to maintain the high principles which we have always had. If we had collected the thirteen months' income, the balance should have gone to the reduction of the National Debt. It was a wise provision of our forefathers when they decided that all moneys over at the end of the year should go to the reduction of the National Debt.
  I believe the composition of the Commissioners of the National Debt comes up on this Vote. The composition of that body was framed for the very purpose of meeting or obviating, or tending to obviate, such a case as has arisen at the present time. By the Act that appoints these Commissioners, certain other gentlemen are appointed to assist them, men of the highest and most independent position. There is Mr. Speaker, the Master of the Rolls, the Governor of the Bank of England, and two or three others of unimpeachable position. These are appointed for the purpose of preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing such as he has done this year. By some means or other for years past these Commissioners
  1410
  have not met, and it appears now that the work of the Commissioners is entirely and absolutely done alone by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A quorum is three Commissioners, but the Chancellor acts alone and gets the minutes signed by two other Commissioners. From what I have read of the Act, and I have read it very carefully, I do not think that this action can be in any way justified. The action of the Chancellor is not finance. It may be that people are hypnotised, perhaps, at the present time, but I think we shall wake up. I think the country is waking up, because immense interest is being taken on the subject of the National Debt, and the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to collect the money to which I have referred. More interest is being taken in the matter than perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks, and people are beginning to find out that the administration of the country and the administration of our finances is not in safe hands.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is perfectly correct when he says that more interest is being taken in this matter. I can assure the Committee that I have had more letters on this subject since the various questions were asked in the House than on any political matter during the last few months. I do think that it would have been only fair to the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some one on his behalf, should have earlier answered what I consider the unanswerable speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), because until we know which horse the Chancellor is going to ride it is a little-difficult for us on this side of the House lo complete our accusations against the Government. It is perfectly clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to throw over either the interview with the "Daily Chronicle" or his subordinate in this House. What we really want to know is which he is going to throw over? Whether the answers given in this House from time to time and week after week by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Hob-house) were correct, or whether the interview in the "Daily Chronicle" was correct? In other words, whether the Chancellor is really going to take upon himself the whole responsibility for this action, whether he is going to say to the Com-

  1411
  mittee to-day that this action was done under his own inspiration and with his own sanction, or whether he is going to adopt—I do not know whether the word "subterfuge" is unparliamentary, or whether it would be too harsh—whether he is going to give the excuse adopted by the Financial Secretary right through, namely, that this mistake was that of a subordinate official.
  5.0 P.M.
  It may be right or it may be wrong that this money should be saved from the Sinking Fund for the Budget of this year. That I do not propose to argue. What I do suggest is that, right or wrong, it is this House that ought to decide. It is the law which ought to decide, and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the mere statement under his own hand. It is perfectly clear—the law was amply laid down by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London—that under the law this money ought by right to go to the Old Sinking Fund. We all know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried last year to make a raid upon the Sinking Fund. Having received the rebuff he did, he, above all men, should have been careful about tampering with the Old Sinking Fund this year. It is open to us to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew the House objected to a raid upon the Sinking Fund, and that he knew that if he came to the House and asked permission to take this money from the Old Sinking Fund for the current year, the House, acting upon its previous decision of last year, would say "No." Instead of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took it upon himself by what, I am afraid, I must call this subterfuge to take the money out of the old Sinking Fund unknown to the House, and I think the House will agree that if my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton) had not been connected with railways and had not had this matter brought to their personal cognisance we never would have had any knowledge of it, and no one would know that at least £800,000 would have been gained by the Chancellor this year rather than have gone to the reduction of the National Debt.
  There is another more important point, which is this. The House of Commons is entitled to place the most absolute reliance upon answers given by Ministers to questions put to them. I am not going to
  1412
  suggest for one moment that the Secretary to the Treasury deliberately misled the House of Commons, but either that was the case or the Treasury officials misled him in the answers they supplied to him. Knowing the Treasury officials at Somerset House, and having been connected with them for many years passed, I can hardly believe it possible that they could have supplied answers to the right hon. Gentleman that were not accurate, and unless they did that the right hon. Gentleman himself must have been the man who misled the House. I am not going over again all the questions and answers given, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to one portion of an answer given to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the City on 3rd April. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:—
  "The instructions of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue were to receive payment on the 30th March."
  Now who gave those instructions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only person who could give instruction to the Chairman to the Board of Inland Revenue, and we learn it was his orders not to collect the money until after the 30th March. Then whose order was it that was given to the Chairman of the Board to receive payment on the 30th. Was it the order of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or was it the order of the Financial Secretary? And was the order to receive payment on the 30th March given at the same time that the Chancellor had it in his mind not to receive payment until after the 31st March? On the 10th April we get an account of the unfortunate subordinate official, who we are told was really responsible for the mistake having been made. We have heard who this subordinate official was. A very remarkable answer was given on the 20th April in a reply to a supplementary question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. My question was:—
  "When and how did the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue find his instructions were misunderstood?"
  The history of the case up to this was that dual instructions apparently were given, one by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, putting the thing off until after the 31st March so that the money would come into the new year, and the other, instructions, given by somebody at present unknown, presumably Sir Robert Chalmers, to collect the money on the 30th March. Who sent the subordinate official to collect the money on the 30th March. I

  1413
  wonder if the subordinate official knew when he was sent to collect the money that the Chancellor, who is really his official head, wanted it kept back until after the 31st March. Then the case was made that in these extraordinary interviews with the railway company, that a man in Mr. Grasemann's position, with £800 a year, misunderstood the instructions of his own Chairman, and that in these interviews he told the railway company not to pay until after the 31st March. I then asked in this House when did the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue find out that his instructions were disobeyed, and the Secretary to the Treasury answered:—
  "The first I learned of it, and I believe the first news the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had of it, was the question put to me by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1911, col. 1026.]
  Surely we are entitled to have some more clear and definite answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to these extraordinary series of passings to and fro between subordinate officials and the Chairman to the. Board of Inland Revenue as to who really made the mistake, and as to when the Chairman really knew, because if the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue only found out on 3rd April—that was the date when the question was first, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for the City—that a mistake had been made, and the collection postponed, how was it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say to his own Chairman, "By the by, are you keeping this payment back in accordance with my policy?" There is a very considerable degree of explanation required from somebody in regard to these matters.
  I want to add a further small point, not yet mentioned in the course of this Debate. Not merely have the Government postponed the collection of money, but they have been paying money out in unduly large quantities during the March of this year. Everybody knows that people entitled to repayment of Income Tax have to send in claims for that purpose. I had to do with a great many in my time. These claims are most carefully examined by the officials at Somerset House, and they raise every question they can possibly raise and rightly raise, because they are parting with Government money before they admit their claims, and it is not until every question is disposed of that they send you back the repayment of Income Tax. I have now in my hand a document headed
  1414
  "Important Notice." This important notice was despatched to no less than 7,500 Income-Tax repayment claimants in the month of March this year. It reads:—
  "In forwarding the enclosed order in repayment of an Income Tax claim, the Secretary to the Board of Inland Revenue desires to state that the examination of the claim has not been fully completed—"
  Rather an unusual form of notice to those of us who have any experience of trying to get money hack from the Treasury. It is not like getting a tooth out of an hon. Member; it is more like getting butter out of a dog's throat—
  "but in order to avoid the delay which would ensue at this period of the year if repayment were deferred."
  Why at this particular period of the year, is the Treasury to return Income Tax without proper examination in order to avoid undue delay, and without the same examination and queries? Why are 7,500 people, much to their delight, to get their money back in order to avoid unreasonable delay which would ensue at this period of the year? I asked a question in this House as to the meaning of this, and I was told it is an old form in use before, and that it is constantly used. I pursued my question a little further, and I asked how many of these repayments were made in the previous year. Do you generally return 7,500 repayments in March? Oh! dear no! Six hundred and fifty were made in March last year. I have not yet had the privilege of receiving the Chancellor's answer to my question as to other years. But I think the House will find that the average number of repayments made without examination in March for a period of years passed is not more than 500. Yet this year, when they do not want to collect Income Tax from the big railway companies the Treasury, at the same time, are repaying as much Income Tax as they possibly can in order, as I submit, to swell the amount of money taken from the old Sinking Fund and devoted to purposes of this year. I submit we have made an unanswerable case, and that it will need all the ingenuity which we know the Chancellor of the Exchequer possesses in an unrivalled degree to explain the very serious discrepancies, not merely between his statement in the "Daily Chronicle" and the statements made in this House, but between the actual answers to questions which Ministers themselves gave from day to day and week to week in this House.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE: I only rise for a moment because a complaint was sent to

  1415
  me from one of those people who have to pay Property Tax near Birmingham. With the permission of the Committee I will read the letter:—
  "Dear Sir,—I have noticed the question in the House of Commons relating to the collection of taxes, and thought perhaps you might like to hear my experience. I have not yet received any demand note for the Property Tax due here in January, and which I always deduct from the rent due Lady-day. Accordingly, about the 25th March I wrote to the collector of taxes and suggested he had overlooked me in some way, and asking him to let me have the demand note at once, so that I could settle it and take it out of the rent due. A few days later a man called here with my letter in his hand, and said 'in reference to this letter I ant instructed to call and tell you that the matter will be attended to.' I have not heard anything more about it in any way, and paid the rent without being able to deduct it."
  I have the permission of my correspondent., who is a well-known man in Birming ham (Mr. Thomas Tanner, of 19, Easy Row, Birmingham) to publish his letter. I put down a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and he said he did not know that there had been any delay in the collection of this tax, but if I would acquaint him with any case he would be glad to make inquiries. I told the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House that I would give him details, and, having done so, I got a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which, while he acknowledged what I complained of might have happened in one case, he had no knowledge that it had happened to any great extent. Since I put that question I have received a good many letters on the subject, and I have been told that generally in Birmingham there has been very great delay in collecting this tax. The reason my original correspondent wrote was that tradesmen, when they pay their rent like to deduct the Property Tax, and they are put to great inconvenience if they cannot do so. I have a letter from another person in the same neighbourhood who has forwarded me a demand note, which is headed as follows:—
  "Income Tax and House Duty for the year commencing 6th April, 1910. Land Tax for the year commencing 25th March, 1910. Payable on or before 1st January, 1911."
  Although this was payable on that date, up to 20th April, on which date this note which I have in my hand was issued to another correspondent of mine, this tax had not been called for. It is not for me to enter into the merits of the collection of this tax, because that has been ably dealt with by other speakers. But on behalf of the people who pay the tax I may say—although I believe the last thing the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do would
  1416
  be to put small people to any great inconvenience—by issuing instructions that there is to be a delay, he has caused very great inconvenience. It cannot be said that this is a local matter. I have another letter, but I am not going to give the name of this correspondent, because he has written me a private letter. He points out that all the collectors in the Birmingham centre are appointed by the Board of Inland Revenue, under whose instructions and warrant they act. Those appointments, he says, were handed over to the Board of Inland Revenue many years ago. I also received a letter from another gentleman connected with the collection of revenue in the Midlands in which he said that at the present moment the collectors of revenue in that part of England are very much overworked. He stated that some of them had to work sixteen hours a day, including Sunday, and they have had a very hard time of it indeed. We have had a very large number of permanent officials appointed all over the country, and if so many extra officials have been appointed surely in the collection of revenue we ought to have the necessary number of officials in order that the revenue may be collected at the proper time. I am quite sure that the House is waiting anxiously for any explanation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give, but I say with all earnestness it is a scandal that this tax should not be collected at the present time, and it will be a greater scandal to the taxpayers of this country if any loss is caused by this tax not being collected at the proper time.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I am glad that this question has been raised, not from a party point of view, but in the interests of sound finance, which we on this side of the House are equally as enthusiastic and devoted supporters of as hon. Members on the other side of the House. Quite apart altogether from whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say later on, I feel that so far as the facts are within our knowledge, and judging from the public interview, to which reference has been made, which was published in the "Daily Chronicle," we must go on those facts, it seems to me that every honest man must dissociate himself from and condemn wholly and entirely the action of the Treasury in this matter. It may interest the Committee if I briefly refer to the statutory Acts which apply to the Sinking Fund. The old Sinking Fund was first proposed by Sir Robert Walpole in the

  1417
  year 1716 for the purpose of redeeming the debt due to the Bank of England. The new Sinking Fund was established in 1875. It has been temporarily raided from time to time by various Chancellors of the Exchequer, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is provided that when there is a surplus it should go to the National Debt Commissioners, to be devoted to the reduction of debt. The full charge in the new Sinking Fund, I believe, amounts to £28,000,000, but the main fact we have to deal with is that the surplus over and above the expenditure ought, under statutory declaration, automatically to go to the reduction of debt. As to what the actual figures really were, I should like to ask a question. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us this afternoon what is the exact amount which has been held back or retarded in the collection? I saw one statement to the effect that in one week of this financial year in April £3,393,000 was collected, as against £179,000 during the same period in the previous year. Even allowing for the Super-tax, there is ample evidence there that there was a distinct retarding of the collection of Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman, in the interview to which reference has been made, explained that the Government were averse to bringing pressure to bear because two Income Taxes had been collected so closely together. But that is not the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us to understand that the Treasury were not pressed for money, as if that was any justification for doing that which was illegal and which I submit is unsound finance. Why is it unsound? I do not know whether hon. Members observed the speech made by Lord Morley at the annual dinner of the Association of English Country Bankers and the Central Association of Bankers, held at the Whitehall Rooms on the 10th instant, in which he said:—
  "It was well worth considering whether the economic credit of this country was not as important an element in all those great conditions of natural strength, prosperity, and future aggrandisement as any of the political issues that now exercised us."
  I think the Committee will agree with me that had this money been collected in the usual way, and had it gone to swell the surplus to be devoted to the automatic reduction of debt that would have improved our national credit. That lies at the very root of all social reform. If our credit is improved, and the price of Con-sols increase, it would have an effect upon the lending credit of every bank through-
  1418
  out the country. Credit lies at the root of all our trade and commerce. We hear a great deal about the new finance, but you cannot alter economic laws because their principles are eternal. You cannot make money by any other way than by honest toil, and you cannot pay debts if you do not save money to repay them. If you swell your surplus and increase the amount devoted to the Sinking Fund you will improve your credit, reduce your debt, and improve your strength; and should we happen to be at war nothing could be more potent than the improvement of your credit in addition to the provision of adequate defensive forces. Apart from the illegality, I dissociate myself, as I have no doubt many other hon. Members do from this unsound argument that the country is being benefited by such action. On the contrary, the country is being hurt, and the Consol holder has a case against the Treasury because his security has been tampered with. If you reduce debt in any concern the security of the remaining holders of stock is increased. I say in this case the Treasury has been guilty of tampering with the security of the Consol holder. Every holder of Consols has a case against the Treasury for unduly and dishonestly tampering with his security. It is not at all a pleasant duty to stand here and attack a Minister belonging to one's own party, but after all we have a public duty to perform, and that is to maintain the high traditions of Parliament. If we are true to the great traditions which Peel, Gladstone, and other upholders of true finance established, we shall be doing right not only for ourselves, but for the immediate future of this country.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: There has been a customary procedure as regards the receipts up to the 31st January. I know that in Liverpool, when you have got a large amount in the hands of collectors of Income Tax which you do not want for the purposes of the year, you tell them they need not pay it in. Whilst I am no apologist at all for any explanations given by the Secretary to the Treasury, I think more or less they were influenced by the fact that he had not got his chief present, and he was unable to make that free concession as regards financial manipulation which can be used in the case of the annual receipts and payments. We must all admit that this is a point which frequently comes up, and the real reason is that our dealings are upon the basis of

  1419
  cash receipts and expenditure, and not on the basis of double entry, which is income and expenditure. Where you take it on the receipt side as regards cash receipts you can always manipulate it. On the other hand you can always keep back a considerable amount of payments so as to make the accounts to the end of the twelve months period more or less agree with the requirements.
  There is a permanent official looking after these proceedings, and that permanent official has the interests of the nation very much at heart. We know what he did in 1909 when the Budget was on the tapis. It was then considered unnecessary for any payment to be made in regard to the duties on sugar, tea, and whiskey, and merchants and others were induced to pay their duty. Hon. Members opposite at that time desired to encourage confusion in order to persuade the people to believe in their attack on the House of Lords, but that confusion was not created. The nation at large was extremely indebted to the officials of the Government for the way in which they persuaded traders to pay, and thus avoided the financial confusion which would otherwise have arisen. I take it this is very much the case here. The officials of the Government thought it would be very nice to have a balance for next year, and I have no doubt we should find, if we inquired into it, that not only did they prevent the railway companies and others paying their tax, but they also left large balances in the hands of the various collectors, in order that they might have a big balance to deal with this year. That is shown by the fact that the receipts for April were considerably over £5,000,000, whereas the receipts for the corresponding month of last year were about £2,000,000. This year, therefore, the Government find a nice additional sum in April to meet their expenditure. That is not owing to the Government, nor is it owing to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; it is owing to one of the little foresights for which we are indebted to the Treasury. The Treasury did not wish to issue new Exchequer Bills, and they wished to pay off old Exchequer Bills without renewal. They knew they had to look after the nation's finances, and to see they were properly protected, and there was plenty of money to go on with without incurring fresh debt, so they did this nice little piece of busness. It certainly makes the finances of this year turn out well, but
  1420
  it is hardly in accordance with what we might expect from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was aware of it.
  It is absolutely impossible to avoid this manipulation unless you alter the way in which you keep your accounts, and keep them in double entry instead of in cash receipts and expenditure. You are always preaching to the municipalities that they should do it, and I am glad to be able to preach back to the Treasury, and tell them to go and do likewise. There is no reason why the arrears should not be equally utilised for the purpose of redeeming debt. They are part of the income for the year, and part of the taxation imposed for the year, and they ought to be utilised for the purpose of redeeming debt. Instead of that you throw yourselves into the hands of the Treasury. We are usually indebted to the Treasury for the able way in which they manage our finances, but it is beyond human conscience to say, when they know the money you will require in April for the purposes of your expenditure and you do not want to incur fresh debt, that they should not manage a very nice little financial juggle such as this for the purpose of giving you a big balance with which to start the year. That, I believe, is the absolute explanation. It has always been done, and it will be done again whatever party is in power. It is a rotten system; it defrauds the Sinking Fund, and it is contrary to good finance. I hope this Debate, if it does nothing else, will impress upon the Treasury the necessity of keeping their books according to what any competent accountant would advise, by double entry.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is a very able authority on financial subjects. He has had considerable experience, and I think by common consent he is about the best financial adviser the great city of Liverpool has ever had. I shall have occasion to refer later in the course of my observations to the very pertinent and valuable suggestions which he made. Before I come to that, I wish to deal with the charge brought against the Treasury and the Inland Revenue in connection with the retardation of the Income-tax collection. What is the case made against us? It is that we have deliberately delayed the collection of the Income Tax in order, as my hon. Friend suggested, to dishonestly rob, the Sinking Fund and avoid new taxation this year.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I am very sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not suggest he had done that. I said it amounted to that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentlemen is much too subtle for me.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: Pardon me, there is a great distinction.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will take that as the proposition which has been laid down. I only want to state fairly what the case is I have got to meet. Let us see what the position is and what are the facts. In 1909 I produced a Budget which, for reasons I need not enter into because they are not relevant, I was not able to get through that year, and therefore the Income Tax for that year was completely thrown out of gear, and for other reasons I need not enter into because they are irrelevant. I did not get the Budget of 1909 through until the end of April last year. I had about £30,000,000 of Income Tax in arrear, and I could not commence collecting it until May, 1910. In the ordinary course, it would have been collected months before that, and I had to begin to collect the Income Tax for 1909 before I began the ordinary operation for the year for the collection of the Income Tax for 1910–11. When I introduced my Budget in 1910—I think it was in April—I knew I had to take that into account, and I consulted the officials of the Inland Revenue and the officials of the Treasury as to what revenue I should be able to collect in the course of the year. I was advised I could not without extreme pressure collect the ordinary Income Tax within £2,000,000 in the course of the year. Is that at all surprising? I had first of all to set up absolutely new machinery for collecting a new tax, the Super-tax, and Income Tax, to get returns, and in addition to that I had to collect an extra 2d. for the Income Tax. I do not think anyone would say it was unreasonable to anticipate I should be £2,000,000 in arrear under those circumstances. I am not sure it was challenged in the House at the time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it was.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The opinion of the Treasury, at any rate, was that I would not be able to collect within £4,000,000. I accepted the more moderate view that I could collect within £2,000,000. What has happened? Two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite have said: "You
  1422
  have offered an explanation which is absolutely inconsistent with the explanation of your colleague." I have not. My explanation is in reference purely and simply to the bulk of the Income Tax, which I failed to collect. It has no reference to the railway companies. I will come later on to the railway companies, which I think are a matter of £500,000 or £600,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: £680,000.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am referring now to purely normal arrears, excluding railway companies. My Budget policy for the year involved a delay in the collection of £2,000,000 of the ordinary Income Tax. There is no concealment about that. I told the House in April of last year that would be the position. When a gentleman called upon me somewhere down in the country, I referred to my Budget and showed that was the policy, and that I could not collect that Income Tax without extreme pressure. There are circumstances under which that pressure would have been perfectly justified. Supposing the financial needs were such that we really needed every penny of the money, I think we should have been justified in putting pressure in order to get all the Income Tax we possibly could—even the arrears which I anticipated—into our possession. But there were no financial needs of that kind, and therefore all I did was to carry out the Budget policy of 1909, and the Income Tax—apart from the railway companies—which we collected balances within a penny according to the forecast I gave to the House as far back as April last year. So much for the ordinary Income Tax, and for the statement that there was any inconsistency in what was said by my right hon. Friend and the statement which I made to the interviewer.
  Now we come to the question of what happened to the railway companies. It was certainly no part of my policy, no part of my anticipation, and no part of my forecast, and the statement made by my right hon. Friend at this box is the absolute fact. What happened? In the case of the railway companies the money is collected on the 20th March. It is supposed to be collected in four instalments, and those who talk about the law being defied, let them bear in mind that up to the present the law has been defied in that respect. It ought to be collected in two instalments. The railway Companies

  1423
  do not pay the first instalment till December, though they ought to pay considerably earlier than that, and they pay the second on 20th March. That is how the law has been interpreted, not by me, but by every Chancellor of the Exchequer in the past. On the 20th March the second instalment falls due. An hon. Gentleman opposite, in my absence, said he was under the impression that we were two millions in arrears with the railway companies. As a matter of fact, the House has discovered it is only £650,000.
  Mr. FELL: I did not say £2,000,000 in arrears with the railway companies. I said that was the total estimate for all companies.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not merely the railway companies. Very good. Then there is nothing in that point. The second instalment is due on the 20th March, and you have got altogether eleven days in which to collect it. The instructions in regard to it were given by Sir Robert Chalmers. The Treasury had nothing to do with it. We issued no instructions of any sort or kind. It was Sir Robert Chalmers who directed that the money was to be in by the 30th March. The Gentleman who undertook the function of collecting the money did not collect it until the 11th April. In that he undoubtedly was wrong. It was not merely a mistake; it was a wrong interpretation of his instructions. He did what he ought not to have done. That is all that has happened. I have a statement from the Chairman of the Inland Revenue on the subject, and he said he knew absolutely nothing about it. It may be suggested that this only accounts for £650,000. One might imagine that we kept back millions bf money in order to deprive the Old Sinking Fund of what ought to have gone into it.
  What are the facts? It was anticipated at the beginning of the year we would be four millions in arrear, in view of the fact that the whole machinery of tax collection had been thrown out of gear by the exceptional circumstances of the last two Budgets. With regard to the collection from the railway companies there was a mistake. It is a mistake that ought not to occur again. It is a mistake that no Inland Revenue officer should be in a position to make. What happened? The companies pay in December and in March. In Scotland they pay on the
  1424
  1st January. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has stated that the Noble Lord who brought forward this question has done great service in this matter by calling attention to an anomaly and an injustice and to something which might dislocate the finances of the Treasury and by pointing out the temptations to which an unscrupulous Chancellor of the Exchequer might be subjected. It is the intention of the Government to make that impossible in the future, and they propose to do so by putting the English railway companies in exactly the same position as the Scottish companies.
  Mr. WATT: Why not put the Scottish companies in the same position as the English?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was anxious for this Debate, and I think I am justified in saying that it has been exceedingly useful, inasmuch as it has enabled us to see clearly the perils of the present position whereby the railway companies are allowed to pay at the last moment, and something might happen which might prevent our getting the money in the course of the financial year. We should make that impossible, and we propose to do it in the future, by making the payment due a little earlier.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: What will the country think of it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, why should not the railway companies pay their Income Tax in the same way as any other person in this country?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Nobody objects.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The suggestion to my mind was that the country would think it was done out of revenge, and not out of policy.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, it seems impossible to meet some hon. Gentlemen either way. If you do not collect until April they suggest there is something dishonest. On the other hand, if you make sure of the collection before April, then you are a vindictive person. It is really quite impossible to please hon. Gentlemen. I come now to the question which I assume is at the very root of this matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London brought this subject forward not to attack the Government. Oh, no! He disclaimed that, and I am bound to accept his disclaimer. I am sure it is the last

  1425
  thing he had in his mind. He has done it as Member for the City of London. He has done it as one who is very concerned about our finances. He is especially concerned about the Sinking Fund. I wonder when the hon. Baronet's great zeal for the Old Sinking Fund began. He supported a Government which for ten years had surpluses, and which never, during the whole of that ten years, paid a single penny to the Old Sinking Fund. Where then was this full-blooded champion of the Old Sinking Fund I was rather curious this morning to read some of his speeches. He did not speak quite so often in those days, for he then generally confined himself to the dinner-hour, in order to help his colleagues to fill their own Sinking Fund. I remember that at that time the late Sir William Harcourt was constantly attacking the late Government because they paid nothing to the Old Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman said all the things which have been said so eloquently by the hon. Baronet to-day about the importance of reducing the National Debt, and how important it was that every possible penny should be paid into the Sinking Fund. But the hon. Baronet supported every Motion to deprive the Old Sinking Fund of every penny of surplus, and he gave his reasons for so doing. This is one of them which he put forward when he defended the action of the late Government. Then he said:—
  "Is it an advantage to do away altogether with the National Debt? I say distinctly it is not."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Not at all.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting my action. I said, at the time he is referring to, that it was not advisable to do away entirely with the National Debt, that is in an open manner with a New Sinking Fund and not the Old Sinking Fund, and not in a manner which is hidden from the House and is contrary to statute. The two things are absolutely different. My speech related to an open proposal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the amount of the New Sinking Fund to a certain extent. I acquiesced in it, the position of the country being what it was at that time. But that is an entirely different thing to altering the Sinking Fund, without the knowledge and consent of the House of Commons. I never in my life suggested that
  1426
  money which ought to go to the Old Sinking Fund should go to other purposes. I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the repayment of debt—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not object to the hon. Baronet's interruption, but I think he is going beyond the limits of a personal explanation. The position at the beginning was this: That it was important to put every possible penny into the Old Sinking Fund, and that to simply use it for the purposes of relief of taxation in any way was very wrong. The hon. Baronet asked:—
  "What good purpose does the National Debt serve. It provides sound investments for certain people. Therefore I hold that provided the debt does not press unduly on the resources of the people, it is extremely advantageous to have a National Debt."
  The hon. Baronet at that time was defending the Government for not paying money over to the Old Sinking Fund.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The New Sinking Fund.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is wrong. The proposal then was to use the surplus, to take it away from the Old Sinking Fund and to put it into Naval loans. That was the proposal. The hon. Baronet calls it the New Sinking Fund. I say it was the old Sinking Fund. Now he objects, and he is apparently still of the same opinion so long as this thing is done by a Conservative Government. Let me show what we have done with the Old Sinking Fund—I really would like the attention of hon Members to this, seeing that they have challenged me to defend my action, and seeing that we are attacked on the ground that we have taken away money from the Old Sinking Fund—I say that this is the last Government that can be attacked on the ground of not having dealt faithfully with the Old Sinking Fund. The Conservative Government did not pay a single penny to the Old Sinking Fund. What have we paid? During the three years the Prime Minister held the office which I have now the honour to fill he paid over £11,000,000 into the old Sinking Fund. We have reduced the debt of this country during the five years we have been in office by £55,918,000.
  What did our predecessors do? I will leave out the War Accounts, but if you take purely normal years during the whole of the ten years they were in office they reduced the debt by £22,000,000. We have done more in five years than they did in the whole of their ten years; we have done almost three times as much. In

  1427
  addition to that they really increased the indebtedness of this country by £140,000,000, and these Gentlemen, who never had a word to say about the old Sinking Fund when they were in office, paid off debts at the rate of only £2,000,000 a year, even when there was no war. What have we done? The last two years have been very difficult years, and the difficulties have not been of our creation. Yet even during those last two years, when I have had difficulty with my Budget, when I have had difficulty even with the collection of Income Tax, we have paid £17,450,000 off the National Debt. Something was said about certain persons being brazen. I do not know what quality that requires. But for Gentlemen who never paid a penny into the old Sinking Fund to taunt those who paid £11,000,000 into it, and for those who increased the debt by £140,000,000 to taunt those who reduced it by £55,000,000, and who are making arrangements to reduce it still further, I wonder what quality that is. [An HON. MEMBER: "Brass."]
  6.0 P.M.
  I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) is present, because I am about to refer to what he said, and I will tell him exactly in what respect it is erroneous. In the interview to which reference has been made I said that even if we were two millions in arrear, it was purely reverting to the position, so far as Income Tax collection is concerned, which obtained before the right hon. Gentleman came into office. In addition to that, I said that there was great pressure which had been brought to bear on the Income Tax payers in that year—exceptional pressure—and I said it was in order to relieve the financial needs of the right hon. Gentleman. I will give a correct account of the transaction.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have the interview here, and I will read what the reporter says the right hon. Gentleman said, and it differs from what he now says.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has been read already. I do not think there will be any quarrel between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, because I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said in his Budget speech in 1905. He said:—
  "I have made no allowance at all for increased efficiency of collection which has been going on for some years."
  1428
  As a matter of fact it was in that year that it began to make any impression upon the balances. The right hon. Gentleman continued:—
  "but which undoubtedly was largely stimulated by the new instructions issued by the Board of Inland Revenue to the collectors in the month of November last. For the present, I confine myself to the statement that those instructions were issued by the Board of Inland Revenue in the exercise of their ordinary discretion, without any regard to the circumstances of this particular year, and without any hint or suggestion from me."
  I accept those statements. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "I am, of course, absolutely responsible for them, and take the whole responsibility, but having regard to what has been said and suggested outside, I think the Committee ought to know that these instructions were not the result of pressure by a needy Chancellor, but of the ordinary action of the Board of Inland Revenue in pursuance of a policy which they have long been following."
  The right hon. Gentleman says he did not give the instructions, and, of course, I accept any statement made by him, and I can quite see that it is in accordance with what would have happened. It is what the Inland Revenue does, and rightly the responsibility must be theirs as regards the collection of the revenue, and the idea that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is continually giving instructions to collect this or retard the collection of that or other matters is really not in accordance with the facts. I quote this statement as indicating clearly the position, and I accept absolutely the explanation which was given, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look back at what happened on that occasion he will find that during that year and the preceding year the quickening process bad made a very great impression upon arrears. In 1902–3 the arrears on 31st Marcia were six millions odd, in the following year they were only £3,860,000, and the reduction continued in the succeeding years, until at last the figure comes down to £3,700,000. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the process had begun beforehand, but that was a policy which was started undoubtedly when the Exchequer was undoubtedly hard pressed.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. In the first place, the policy, whatever it was, was in accordance with law. The law said the money ought to have been collected, and the Commissioners were trying to collect it. That is a very different thing to instructions being given not to collect that which the law says ought to be collected. I protest against the allegation that the

  1429
  instructions of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in 1905 were the result of the special necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a particular year. That was not so. They were issued in accordance with a settled policy steadily pursued. It is perfectly true that in the years to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refers the Commissioners of Inland Revenue took extra severe action, but it was not a year of exceptional necessity, for in it I handed over a surplus of £1,500,000 to the old Sinking Fund, to which the Chancellor said our Government never paid a penny.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The year I am referring to is not the year to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The year of great pressure was 1903–4. Does anyone doubt that that was a year of great pressure? The war was over, the expenditure of the war was still continuing, and it was a year of very great pressure. I am bringing no charge against any of my predecessors for doing a perfectly right thing. If they could avoid increasing taxation by putting on a little pressure to secure collection before 31st March. They were perfectly within their rights in doing so, and it is absurd to bring charges of dishonesty in regard to collection in reference to a question of adjustment between one year's finance and another. We know that £6,000,000 of arrears fell to £3,860,000. What does that mean? It means that there had been enormous pressure brought to bear in order to collect the tax. The process did not begin with the right hon. Gentleman. It began with the Chancellor of the Exchequer responsible at, the time, either Lord St. Aldwyn or Mr. Ritchie, and the drop really began in 1900–01. Then pressure was brought to bear, and Income Tax was collected with much greater sternness and severity in that year and the year which followed than in any preceding year. That is all I have to say about that. Coming to the general question of policy, the hon. Member for Liverpool, who has great financial experience, suggested that the bookkeeping arrangements of the Treasury were not all that could be desired. I agree that some of the methods are archaic, but still the old Sinking Fund has not been dropped. What would happen if I found myself in financial stress owing to the fact that there was extraordinary naval expenditure this year in connection with building of ships? Does anyone suppose that for the purpose of
  1430
  meeting a financial exigency of that kind if he had £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 to spare he would pay it into the old Sinking Fund and then impose new taxes? Would any Chancellor of the Exchequer do that? The hon. Member for East Birmingham, whose main object seemed to be to make himself very offensive—and I must congratulate him on his natural gifts in that respect—began to lecture upon the principles of finance. If the hon. Member had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, would he have paid £7,000,000 into the old Sinking Fund and impose taxes for a single year to meet special exigencies?
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me personally, I would say that so far as it is a continuing burden year after year, then, of course, one should put on taxation.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad to hear that. It is the first time that that, principle has been enunciated on that side of the House, because when we had a burden imposed by the Naval Works Act they always resorted to borrowing, and it was only when the Prime Minister became Chancellor of the Exchequer that he began to pay current expenditure out of revenue. That is the whole position. I told the House in April last year that £2,000,000 of arrears were anticipated. There was nothing surreptitious about it, and I stated that we should be £2,000,000 in arrears because we could not get the machinery in operation without breaking it. So far as the railways are concerned I say that the course of action is wrong. It should not have been done, and I will take good care it is not done again. In regard to the old Sinking Fund I shall have paid in £11,000,000 against £1,500,000 of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I said I paid in £1,500,000 in one year.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already given my figures, and the right hon. Gentleman says as far as he was concerned he paid in £1,500,000, but Lord St. Aldwyn never paid in £1,000,000.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say it was £1,500,000 as far as I was concerned. It would not be true to say that, and the Prime Minister acknowledged that he got a handsome surplus from me.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the Prime Minister got a surplus he paid it into the

  1431
  Old Sinking Fund. But, at any rate, the charge cannot be brought fairly against this Government that they have not made every effort, every fair effort, every legitimate effort, to reduce debt and consequently I say the case of the hon. Baronet has absolutely failed.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I confess that I have listened with the greatest possible surprise to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. An hon. Friend of mine behind me, in an earlier part of this Debate, spoke of someone who had written to him and complained about collecting Income Tax, and he told us that his profession was that of a picture restorer. We know from past experience that the profession of the right hon. Gentleman is that of a reputation restorer, and we can judge by the nature of the speech to which we have listened that this picture is past being restored. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken so little interest in this matter as to be ignorant entirely of the whole point. He would practically lead us to believe that he did not in the least understand what the charge was which was made against him. What is his position? He is like a man who is accused of felony, and who gets up and tries to prove that he did not commit murder. That is precisely the defence which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.
  What is the position? We do not in the least accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having done something from a bad motive or something which he could not defend. We accuse him, not mainly because he is taking away money from the Sinking Fund, but because he is taking it away surreptitiously instead of coming to the House of Commons and asking their consent to the course he proposes to take. What was really the meaning of all the talk about paying off debt and of what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) had done in speeding up the collection of Income Tax? What had it to do with it? Does he, with his experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer, pretend that it was not a good thing to try to increase the rapidity with which the tax was collected, or, on the other hand, when he tells us, going back to the old history and always getting the familiar cheer, that we did not put money into the Sinking Fund but used it to pay off naval loans? He does not pause for a moment, however relevant it was to his discourse, to tell us that this virtuous Government, of which he is
  1432
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, refuses to use money of that kind for naval defence, but is using it to-day to build Government offices in precisely the same way. As another illustration of the peculiar methods of defence of the right hon. Gentleman, he came to deal with English railways and he made the remark, in that peculiar tone which we all recognise as meaning sarcasm, that he was deeply grateful to the Noble Lord (Lord Claud Hamilton), and he would take care that a mistake of this kind was not made in future. He made it in a tone of voice which everyone recognised, and there was laughter on those Benches. Is there any man in the House who doubts that what my hon. Friend says Was true, that it was meant to imply "we will punish them"?
  What is the difference between the fault of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accused and the fault for which he has tried to defend himself? It may be a perfectly legitimate thing to use this extra money to meet the coming year's finance. I do not deny that for a moment. I say with him, that if, by means of this extra money, much more than was anticipated last year, you can avoid putting on taxation this year to meet your expenses, and you will not need to put on taxation in the future because it will go on, it is a businesslike arrangement which everyone would make. But even from the point of view of a businesslike arrangement that depends on what the Budget statement is, and we cannot judge whether it is good business till we see it. If he is only using it to meet exceptional expenditure for this year, such as the Insurance Bill, to which I wish all success, when he knows that in the following year there will be greater expense and more taxation will be required, then it is not good business, but very bad business. It is not providing as you go along, but trusting, Micawber like, to what will turn up in the future. We cannot judge whether it is good business or had. That, however, is not the point.
  The point is that in our belief—and in saying this I am expressing the opinion of all the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman and, I believe, of ever man who has ever been engaged in large business transactions—the one thing that you have to guard against is irregularity in the manner in which your accounts are kept, and nothing is more fatal to any country than to adapt for one year, whatever the motive, a method of keeping

  1433
  accounts which is in itself unsound and which is bound to lead to worse results in the future. What happens inevitably is that you make these irregular arrangements for this year on motives which, to the man in the street, you can perfectly defend. Next year there is a temptation to do something of the same kind, not with quite such good motives, and you adopt the precedent which you set with a good motive till you get into a system of finance which is so irregular that you cannot be sure that the finances of the country are properly carried out.
  In saying that, I am not a believer in red tape any more than the right hon. Gentleman, but I will say this, speaking as I always do with business analogies in my mind, that there is nothing worse for a firm engaged in business of any kind than to have red tape in the way in which you conduct the business. But every business man knows that the one part of your business operations in which you ought to have red tape is the keeping of accounts, and that there shall be no irregularity even in ordinary business transactions. It is far more true of national finance, and everyone who has studied the career of Mr. Gladstone knows—at least, this is my opinion—that the greatest service which he rendered to finance in this country was not his Budgets, but the efforts which he made to get our financial arrangements put in a good position, to make them intelligible, and to keep them always in the same form. Our complaint against the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, for the sake of an object, however good, he has departed from that principle. He has used a method of getting money into next year which breaks all our financial traditions, and, what is more, he could, without the least difficulty, have secured the same result by coming to the House of Commons and openly demanding that that arrangement should be made.
  I do not think really a better illustration of the necessity of a certain amount—I would not say of red tape, but of regularity in the form of these things could be found than the way in which all this business from first to last has been met in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated, dealing with his own interview, that he never referred to the railway companies at all. Of course I accept his statement, but it only proves how little attention he was giving to the business of his office in his absence. The question which was put to him by the interviewer was: "Has your
  1434
  attention been called to the questions in the House of Commons?" And it is in relation to that question that he gives the answer which has been quoted by my hon. Friend. Not one of these questions referred to anything else except this: that the Government had deliberately gone to great companies and said to them: "Do not pay your Income Tax when it is due, but pay it later," and they did it verbally at the request of officials in the Government Department. Nothing will show more clearly the danger of starting lines, of that kind than the tortuous method by which it has been defended all through. I am sorry the Secretary to the Treasury is not here. I certainly would not like to attack a man in his absence, and I am not attacking him. What makes it far worse than any question of an individual man is that these questions and answers were not in the main supplementary. The answers were prepared in the Treasury, and no one who will listen to the statement I am going to make can doubt for a single moment that they were prepared in order to conceal from the House of Commons what actually occurred. Let me take these questions one by one. First, the Secretary to the Treasury said it was a mistake of a subordinate official. We do not usually mean by that the head of a department. Further inquiries showed that this subordinate official was Sir Robert Chalmers, the head of the Board of Inland Revenue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is no doubt of it. In another question it was admitted that it was the result of a mistake in instructions given by Sir Robert Chalmers to someone else. The right hon. Gentleman told us that Income Tax was collected by local bodies. As a matter of fact, local bodies have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the collection of Income Tax from railway companies. It is done entirely by the Board of Inland Revenue. They alone have authority over it, and yet in answer to a question he told us the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing whatever to do with it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is doing my right hon. Friend justice. He tells me the official referred to is Sir Robert Chalmers. I am perfectly certain it was not Sir Robert Chalmers. In the second place, he says my right hon. Friend referred to the local collection of Income Tax. I think he might read the question with reference to which my right hon. Friend gave that answer.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will be quite frank. I have taken my information with regard to Sir Robert Chalmers from a speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). What I understood him to say was that the gentleman who went to the railway companies giving these oral instructions was Mr. Grasemann, but that subsequent inquiry showed that the whole thing had been due to a mistake in orally delivering a message between Sir Robert Chalmers and Mr. Grasernann.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is rather an important matter. Sir Robert Chalmers's statement is that he gave instructions for the money to be collected by 30th March.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Why did he give such instructions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Please allow me to confine myself to this one point. He gave express instructions that the money was to be brought in before 30th March, and the responsibility for the blunder is not his in the slightest degree, and I happen to know that the official himself acknowledges that fully.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I at once accept that. It does not in the least affect the argument. I have been perfectly frank in admitting that I got my information from the speech of my hon. Friend, but even admitting that it was entirely a mistake and that it was the other official, Mr. Grasemann, who obtains a salary of £800 or £1,000, I say that to describe him as a subordinate official was obviously misleading the House of Commons. The next curious result which came out in these questions was this. The Secretary to the Treasury was giving an explanation, and this was his explanation. He said that someone in the Treasury gave an instruction—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the date?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman can get the date for himself. The Secretary to the Treasury was explaining how the mistake had arisen. He stated that the head of the Board of Inland Revenue said to somebody—whose name was not given, but apparently it was Mr. Grasemann—"You are to go to the railway companies and tell them that they do not need to pay until 30th March," and by some curious misunderstanding which I have no doubt the official could explain if we had him before us, he said to the railway companies, "Please do not pay until
  1436
  April comes in." Here is a question that has never been answered, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer it now. Why was it that an instruction of this kind was necessary at all? Why should the Inland Revenue have gone to the railway companies, and said, "You need not pay until 30th March"? Was there any conceivable object in it? Was it out of compassion for the railway companies? Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that it was because it was such a great hardship to make them pay twice in one year, while at the same time, when he was sending to the railway companies not to pay, his officers were calling on smaller people throughout the country and squeezing out of them all the payments he could get Then the last of these curious and tortuous answers to which I will refer is this. The Secretary to the Treasury was asked a question, and in reply he said:—
  "It is the case that the railway companies are bound to pay their taxes at some date subsequent to 20th March."
  The reason he gave that answer was that there were only ten days left before the close of the financial year. As a matter of fact, what the railway companies are bound to do is that they must pay after 20th March, and not that they need not pay until after that date. I do not think anyone who listened to the speeches which gave full details of these answers, or who read the interview with the right hon. Gentleman, can doubt that the whole policy of the Department was to try to get this money by administrative action behind the House of Commons when he had it in his power to come openly to the House of Commons and ask for it.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I think as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has openly thrown over one of his officials, it does not matter which he has thrown over. The right hon. Gentleman admits that what was done was a wrong action. May I ask a plain question? Will the £600,000 which he has annexed from last year's Sinking Fund now be repaid when it is admitted that it has been carried into this year illegally? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer pay the money back, to be devoted to the Sinking Fund for the reduction of debt? The right hon. Gentleman apparently does not seem disposed to take the course which on every principle of honesty he ought to take. It appears to me that if an ordinary company were to issue a balance-sheet which did not truthfully represent the state of the company, the directors would be charged

  1437
  with producing a forged balance-sheet. What can the right hon. Gentleman expect but that we shall say, when he produces his Budget next week, that he is producing a fraudulent balance-sheet? If he takes money which was illegally and fraudulently collected this year instead of last year, he is making out a balance-sheet which is not true in fact. If the directors of a company were to do the same sort of thing they would be put in prison for it. What else has been done in connection with the finances of the country? It has been done, not as in the case of a company for the purpose of buying shares, but for the purpose of buying votes. That is the object of the action at the present time of the Treasury.
  What appears to me to be the most serious aspect of the whole thing is the continuous throwing over of subordinate officials on the part of the present Government. This is not the time to go into the matter, but I would remind the Committee of what happened recently in connection with the Board of Education. We see the same thing now in connection with the Treasury. There was another curious mistake in connection with the question of assessing the profits on milk in Hertfordshire. Again, it was stated that an unfortunate mistake was made by a subordinate official. I wish to ask how long the permanent officials are going to go on striving to do their best if they are to be thrown over by those who ought to be held responsible for what is clone in Government offices? If permanent officials are going to be thrown over, you cannot expect them to give the same loyal service as they have given in the past. Surely it is only fair that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should follow the course which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) when he was in the same office. He took entire responsibility for what was done on the part of his subordinates. Has the same responsibility been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or by the President of the Board of Education? I think what has happened shows that an entire change is coming about between the holders of high official positions in the country and the permanent officials. Surely when right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are being paid large salaries and getting all the honour and glory for what is going on in their offices, they ought to accept full and absolute responsibility, and not throw over the permanent officials.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I asked the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) to be good enough to read the answer which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) gave, because he was charged with prevarication, shifting, and shuffling. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the position of Sir Robert Chalmers was made quite clear. I have been able to get the question which was put to my right hon. Friend. It was pointed out to me that the reply which my right hon. Friend had given referred to the collection of Income Tax in the case of the railway companies. This is the question and answer:—
  "Sir Frederick Banbury asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state the amount of Income Tax (including Super-tax and Schedules A and D) uncollected on 31st March; also the percentage of Income Tax of every description uncollected on 31st March, 1905, 31st March, 1906, and 31st March, 1911?
  "Mr. Hobhouse: The amount of Income Tax uncollected on the 31st ultimo cannot be given even approximately at present. The percentages of tax uncollected on the 31st of March, 1905 and 1906, could be given, but would involve some considerable research, and as the corresponding figure for 31st March, 1911, is not available the hon. Baronet will probably not think it worth while to have the figures for the earlier years worked out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1911, col. 612.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I do accept that answer, but it looked to me like a supplementary question. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer sure it is the same question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, it is.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure it is not.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then comes a supplementary question by Sir Frederick Banbury, as follows:—
  "Sir F. Banbury: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will kindly give me an answer to those questions on which he has information, and to which he can give a reply; and may I also ask how it is that it is unknown what portion of the Income Tax is collected, provided that demand notes have been sent in regarding the payment of the money?"
  That has reference to Income Tax of every description.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to do with that.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am reading not an extract, but the whole of the question. I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th April, 1911. That referred to Income Tax of every description, and I put it to the Committee that when a charge is made against a Member of this House, which the hon. Member cannot substantiate by the facts, I think it would have been more worthy of his position in this House if he had withdrawn the statement altogether.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the right hon. Gentleman, before this fatherly advice was given, might have waited until I proved what I said. In the interruption I stated that the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to the question to which I alluded at all. He quoted the report of an answer given on 18th April. The question to which I refer was asked on 6th April. It was put, not by Sir Frederick Banbury, but by Mr. Fell. This is the question exactly as I read it:—
  "Mr. Fell: Is it suggested that Income Tax collectors are acting on their own initiative in postponing the collection of these cheques?
  "Mr. Hobhouse: The collectors of Income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April, 1911, col 2424.]
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an apology is called for in this matter?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to produce the question which elicited the first answer which he read to the House. That is the one upon which this charge against the Treasury is based. It seems to me that the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and, indeed, the general attack made to-day has been in the nature of a personal attack on various Members of the Government and Civil Servants. There has been an attack at some length upon Sir Robert Chalmers. There are no big principles to go for. The Parliament Bill is out of the way, and we now come to personal attacks. What was the personal attack upon Sir Robert Chalmers? It was an attack upon the Government for answering questions from the Treasury in such a form as to mislead the House. At any rate, our Government do allow their Under-Secretaries to answer supplementary questions.
  The CHAIRMAN: This is really quite irrelevant.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case I have really nothing more to say.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) if he had read the question first would not have made the statements which he has made. This is a question by Mr. Fell asking—
  "What instructions were, issued to the collectors of Income Tax during the month Of March; if such instructions were to urge the collection of Income Tax before the close of the financial year, and afterward to delay such collection and to allow the payment to stand over until the early days of April; and if cheques for the payment of Income Tax were offered to the collectors on 30th and 31st March, and the collectors said they did not want them until 4th April?"
  1440
  That had absolutely nothing to do with the railway companies, and the suggestion that the tax was not to be collected from them until the month of April. The hon. Gentleman evidently had something else in his mind. This question does not make a single allusion from beginning to end to the railway companies. I have read it quite carefully, and it asks in general terms. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austere Chamberlain) asked me to jump up and apologise for something before I had an opportunity of reading it. I think he might have asked his colleague (Mr. Bonar Law) to read the question first. It is exactly the same with regard to this answer. The question of the hon. Member for Yarmouth was in the most general terms, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) in reply, says: "I am informed that no instructions were issued," and during the whole of the subsequent discussion there was not a word said about railway companies. And I do not believe that the hon. Member (Mr. Fell) had railway companies mainly in his mind. He was referring to other cases as well, and he made it quite clear that he was referring to general instructions, and said that under those general instructions two millions of money were retained; and when I said to-day he was referring to railway companies, he got up and said, "I am not referring to railway companies. I am referring to other companies. The moment he said that, I looked to the hon. Member (Mr. Bonar Law) to apologise for what had been said, and I think he might have done so.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure the Committee that if I thought I was wrong in this matter I should not hesitate for a moment to give the apology for which he has asked me. I had not done more than take the answer which was given me as a quotation by an hon. Friend behind when I spoke. But when I rose last I had carefully read both question and supplementary questions, and I am absolutely certain that they referred to railway companies and nothing else. And I will convince the House that it is so. The right hon. Gentleman read only the beginning of the question dealing with Income Tax, which was general, and then, according to the report, Mr. Fell came to the point, which was dealt with in all the supplementary questions, and asked:—
  "And if cheques for the payment of Income Tax were offered to the collectors on 30th and 31st March, and the collectors said they did not want them until 4th April?"

  1441
  That reference bears exactly on the question which had been put two days before in regard to railways. I am perfectly certain that these Gentlemen opposite who are interrupting me now will, if they take the trouble to read the Report privately, see that I am perfectly right. Here is what Mr. Hobhouse said in reply:—
  "I am informed that no instructions were issued to the collectors of Income Tax during the month of March, and consequently the second and third parts of the question do not arise. If the hon. Member will be so good as to put down a question with regard to any specific case of the nature indicated in the concluding part of his question, I will inquire into it."
  Then Mr. Fell asked:—
  "Is it suggested that Income Tax collectors are acting on their own initiative in postponing the collection of these cheques?"
  These cheques refer to the last paragraph in this question, which refers to a question in regard to railways put two days previously. There is not the slightest doubt about it. If hon. Members would look into the question they would be more slow in coming to any other conclusion. Then in answer to Mr. Fell's second question Mr. Hobhouse said:—
  "The collectors of income Tax are not under the control of the Treasury at all in this matter."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Thursday, 6th April, 1911.]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no doubt at all that this question is a general question. The hon. Gentleman himself admits that the first part of the question is general in its character. He simply says that the latter part of the question refers to railway companies. If that is the case it is very remarkable that in the whole of this cross-questioning of the Government not a word was said about it. May I also put it to the hon. Gentleman, if it meant the railway companies, the cases which had been referred to previously, why did my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) say that if a question were put down with regard to any specific case he would take care to inquire into it? Those cases had already been given to him. Why did not the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fell) say: "You have got them; I am referring to railway companies?" As a matter of fact he did not. He was referring to the very cases referred to to-night. I thought he was referring to railway companies. He said: "No, I am referring to other companies where there were two millions involved." This is not the only question which the hon. Gentleman has put about them. He has put several cases not about railway cases. He suggested to me that cheques had been collected and held over until after the end of the financial year.
  1442
  That is what the hon. Gentleman had in his mind, and I still say that it is very unfair on the part of the hon. Member (Mr. Bonar Law) to suggest that questions were not read by hon. Members on this side of the House when clearly he had not read them himself. He went through the process of reading them, and he read the answers first and the questions afterwards, and I think really—and I leave this with absolute confidence to the House—that it would have been fairer of the hon. Member if he had withdrawn the charge.
  Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: On a point of Order. The hon. Member (Mr. Bonar Law) stated that the supplementary question to the first question put on 6th April had reference to some questions that had been put on 4th April. [HON. MEMBERS: "3rd April."] On 4th April there is no such question; perhaps he would give the question?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order at all.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: From the point of view of the private Member, this question is not solely one between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. But so far as it is, it has been pretty well thrashed out and pretty well cleared up, saving so far as apologies are not forthcoming. The issue for us is quite different. It was really put in the speech for the hon. Member for Bootle. I followed the Debate very closely. His case culminated in the last few minutes of his speech. So far as I understood him it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been manipulating the revenue so that a certain amount of money was carried forward, which was in itself not a wrong thing to do, but was a thing for which he ought to come to the House to obtain proper authority. And the evidence given, so far as I gathered, by the hon. Member for Bootle to show that there was this manipulation was finally summed up in this whole case of the railway companies. He asked why were the railway companies approached at all? In the ordinary course they would have paid by the 20th, and we were told that they got the cheques by the 30th. Then there has been manipulation. Yet, in the same sentence, the hon. Member said, "You are relieving the railway companies while you are distraining and putting pressure on income Tax payers through the rest of the country." If the collection of Income Tax has actually been speeded up through

  1443
  the rest of the country, what becomes of the case that we are letting the railway companies off in order to keep the money tied up? I am concentrating myself entirely on the case as given by the hon. Member. On his own showing his case breaks down. Whatever may be the explanation as to the railway companies, it is only a sum of £600,000, and he himself assured us that the Government were hastening the collection of the tax in all other quarters. But that would deprive them of a much larger sum than £600,000. So that in the very act of establishing his proof that the Government were piling money up in one direction, he gave an assurance that they were piling money out in another. The main case—apart from the personal case of questions and answers—of the hon. Member for the Bootle Division (Mr. Bonar Law) has absolutely broken down.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: A question was raised on this side as to money which had been received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the wrong period, and he was asked whether that money would be restored to the Old Sinking Fund. I myself put a supplementary question asking the right hon. Gentleman whether there would be a restoration of this money to the Old Sinking Fund, and his answer was that I have no power to alter it. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have the power. If money has been received at the wrong period surely the right hon. Gentleman must have the power to order the restoration of that money to the Old Sinking Fund for the purpose of paying off the old National Debt. I think we ought to have an answer to that question.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALL: I think hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House must be very hard up for political ammunition when they make an attack of this kind upon the Members of the Government with regard to a matter of this description. We all know that the questions and answers and discussions which have taken place on this subject largely raged around the payment of Income Tax by railway companies, however other Income Tax payers may have come under consideration. It has been clearly proved to-day that the amount of money the railway companies have to pay in Income Tax was not a sum which justified the enormous fuss that has been made, nor the
  1444
  attack made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think that attack unnecessary, and it seems to me unworthy almost of the time and attention of the House of Commons. The attack has utterly failed with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his officials. It is quite clear that the Government had no motive for the course which they have taken, and I would point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it would have been quite easy for the Government to come down to the House if they wanted to allocate the surplus money from the taxation of last year, and stated that they wanted it for the services of this year. Therefore the Government had no motive in what they did, and I cannot for the life of me understand how in the world hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite can get up so much excitement inside and outside this House, on a matter of this kind, in order to attack the Government. I did not get up so much to say this, however, as to draw attention to a rather serious aspect of the subject. I think if hon. Gentlemen had not made this matter one for an attack on Ministers, and had discussed the question of the relationship between this House and the Income Tax payer they would have been employing their time and ours more usefully. I think this discussion has brought out a very serious condition of things. Hon. Members opposite have been trying to make political capital out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on that ground I say they were entirely wrong, and that they have failed to use their opportunity in regard to a question which ought to be dealt with.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a frank and open statement here today of what has occurred, and I do not want to make any charge or attack upon any permanent official. Sir Robert Chalmers has been mentioned. I do not want to make any attack on Sir Robert Chalmers, or any other official in the Inland Revenue. I think that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer perfectly cleared himself, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and Members of the Government, who have only followed the usual course of all Ministers. Yet I do think that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the action taken by the permanent officials is a very serious one. It proves that the taxpayer is not controlled according to Acts of Parliament, or by the acts of this House, but that he is controlled absolutely according

  1445
  to the rules of the permanent officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that Sir Robert Chalmers gave instructions to a subordinate that the railway companies were not to pay their Income Tax until 30th March. If the railway companies were not to pay until 30th March, that meant that the money would not come in until April, because I presume the companies pay by cheque. I make no charge against the Government; the charge against the Government has absolutely broken down. But since I have been in this House I have been very much concerned at the way the power of public officials is growing in this country. This is not a party question; both parties in this House are guilty of the same thing. We are always doing lip service to the idea that we ought to have devolution, that this House ought to have more control, and that the local authorities ought to have more control; but directly we come to legislation, whatever form it takes, it always gives more power to the public officials and more power to the Departments. In the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have only another instance of the Holmes circular, only another instance of permanent officials and State Departments getting the whole control of the administration.
  It is absolutely impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any other Minister, as shown by the right hon. Gentleman to-day, or for any party, to keep control of and in touch with, these permanent officials. I think this is a lesson of which the House should take note, and that we ought to take some steps to give this House more control. Ministers have not the time, and I do not see how they can have the time. I do not see why this House should not some day secure more control of our public officials in carrying out their duties, which largely and seriously affect the people of this country. It was rather to make these two points that I have risen on this occasion. First of all, I think the attack on the position of the Government has absolutely broken down, and that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly clear and frank. He told us exactly what has happened, hiding nothing. We as Members of the House, when we are considering Bills which we are asked to pass, should ask ourselves whether the time has not come that this House should form some committee or some organisation of Members of Parliament in regard
  1446
  to these matters. After all, we have to explain them to our constituents when we are tackled with regard to them. It is not altogether a matter of sitting as Ministers on that Bench or ex-Ministers sitting on the other Bench, because what we, as Members, have to ask ourselves is, why so much power is given to public officials? Let this House secure some control of permanent officials and public Departments, and then we will not hear so much of what public officials are allowed to do independent of Ministers, whether at the Board of Education, the Treasury, the Home Office, the Board of Trade, or whatever the Departments may be.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down desires to impress upon the Committee two points. In the first place, he found fault with my hon. Friends on this side because they had turned this Debate, or it is alleged they have turned this Debate, into an attack on the Government, whereas the hon. Gentleman said we should have directed our criticisms and denunciations against the permanent officials.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: That is the last thing I should wish to say. What I said was against the system which Governments of all parties have followed for many, many years. I should be very sorry indeed in this House to begin an attack on the permanent officials.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: It is a very great distinction on my part.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain of the distinction, or its meaning, but that no doubt is my fault. I am quite certain that any Member of this House of experience in these matters is anxious to preserve the Civil Service quite apart from party differences, party debates, and party discussion in this House, and that the wcrst service we can do to the country and its permanent interests is to drag unnecessarily the permanent officials into our discussion. If they have appeared here to-day it is because the Government have adopted a rather unusual course. Usually the Government deal with the public officials in private, and in public take responsibility for what they have done. Anyone who has been a Minister probably remembers

  1447
  the occasion on which he has stood at that box to debate and to accept responsibility for something which may have been done without his knowledge, and about which he may have spoken very strongly to the official who was responsible for it. If the permanent officials have appeared in our Debates to-day it is because the Government have introduced those permanent officials into their answers and sheltered themselves behind the permanent officials instead of taking the usual measure of responsibility. It may occur that an official cannot and ought not to be defended, and the Minister, after speaking to him privately, may in the House repudiate responsibility for his action, undertaking that it shall not occur again. I do not want to put too high the duty of Ministers to defend their subordinates or to shield the permanent officials, nor do I wish to say that there is never a case where the permanent official's action may not be included. But I think, if it has to be done, it should be possible that his name should not appear in our Debates. What has been the conduct of the Government on this occasion? They did not repudiate that first. Their action has been wholly inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is convinced that there is no fault to be found with the Government. That conviction on his part would carry more weight to my mind if I thought he brought an impartial mind to the consideration of this matter. He is convinced that the Government have shown that they have an absolutely clean record in the matter, but their defence has been wholly inconsistent. The Secretary to the Treasury says that a subordinate official made an unfortunate blunder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, confiding, as he usually and habitually does, his views on important political topics, not to the House of Commons even when he is able to attend, as on this occasion he was not, but to some wandering member of the Press, who pursues him to Wales, or to Brighton, or to the Continent, tells that reporter that everything that has been done is right, and that all that has been done is to return to the old and sounder practice which to serve his own "nefarious "ends was not followed by the hon. Member for Worcester when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will read the quotation as the Chancellor disputes my word.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He said he never said so. Let me read what he did say, or what the reporter makes him say. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says the reporter is not wholly accurate, of course I accept it. I will only say that that line of defence emphasises the inconvenience and impropriety of a high official of the Government making his public announcements by way of interview with a reporter whose memory is not sufficiently good, or whose shorthand is not sufficiently accurate to give us the real words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not repudiate it.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then what I said is true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first instance defended everything that had been done. He spoke of what the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue had done, but he said nothing about what a subordinate official had done. He said what the Treasury and Board of Inland Revenue—
  "have done is simply to revert to the practice of former years, the practice first deviated from"
  by myself when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was mistaken in his reference to me, and that part of the subject I need not pursue. I am utterly unable to say how often the right hon. Gentleman was interviewed in other papers which I do not happen to read, and as a matter of fact this only came into my hand by accident. When first invited to speak on the subject, he says that the action is the action of the Treasury and the Board of Inland Revenue, that is to say, his own, that it is a proper action, and that it is a reversion to an old practice. In his "conclusive and frank defence" in the House of Commons, to use the words of the hon. Member who spoke last, he said, "something occurred which I think ought not to have occurred," and he says he will take care it does not occur again. Which explanation is the one we are to believe? I will take whichever explanation the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give; but the two are incompatible.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have fully understood. It is just possible that those words may be very wide. I was referring to the two millions to which I referred in my Budget statement, and I referred to it

  1449
  as my policy for the year included the delay in the collection of Income Tax. I knew I should be two millions short; I was referring to that; I certainly had not got in my mind the railway companies. I agree I ought to have added something to the interview, but I did not see it before it went to the Press, and, in fact, I do not know but that the first time I saw it was in the newspaper. I do not repudiate it. If I had seen it I would have made it perfectly clear that the £800,000 was not included. I knew perfectly well the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury in that respect. I was alluding purely to the larger delay, the delay in the two millions; that was what I had in my mind.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is equally unfortunate in this explanation.
  "I drew Mr. Lloyd George's attention to the assaults that are being directed against him in the Conservative Press and by Opposition speakers in Parliament, in reference to the alleged retardation in the collection of Income Tax for the past financial year."
  What were those attacks in the Unionist Press and in Parliament? They were in reference to the request to the railway companies. I am satisfied with the attitude which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now takes up that the thing is improper that if money which would naturally go into the Old Sinking Fund is to be diverted from it, it is to be done by legislation or by Act of this House, or by Resolution, as the circumstances of the case may admit, and that it is not to be done by the surreptitious instrument of any executive instruction to officials not to carry out their duty according to law. That is the position now laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the future guidance of himself and the officials in the matter. That is a satisfactory position. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer two questions. I want to invite him, first of all, to make some extended inquiry into the payment into the Exchequer by collectors of Income Tax of the sums which they received. The questions and answers in regard to the railway companies have elicited a good deal. A good many communications have come to many of us in all parts of the House. I have been the recipient of some, and I have reason to think that in some cases the cheques paid and drawn for the payment of Income Tax have been held over for very considerable periods by collectors.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some cases?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite certain that I can, and I certainly cannot across the floor of the House. These cases come as those things usually do with the request not to mention names. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that the practice has been more widespread than it should be, and that it ought to be stopped. I say no more about it. I want to ask two questions: Why did the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue think it necessary to issue any particular instructions to Mr. Grasemann this year at all, and why were those instructions verbal instructions instead of the ordinary written minute which is not capable of this kind of misunderstanding, and which leaves a record behind, a very important matter in all such things as this. In the second place, why did the Treasury issue instructions to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue? That I think is not a usual proceeding.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What instructions?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, column 1815, Mr. Hobhouse, in reply to a question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City, said:—
  "The instructions to the Chairman of the Board were to receive payment on 30th March."
  Why did the Treasury interfere in that way with the chairman of the board, and why did the chairman of the board interfere with Mr. Grasemann?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly gave no instructions to the Board, and I frankly, say now I do not know what my right hon. Friend had in his mind here. I am perfectly certain no instructions were issued by the Treasury to the chairman of the board on the subject at all. I rather think there must be a misprint here, and that the words—
  "Instructions to the Chairman,"
  Must be—
  "Instructions by the Chairman."
  And the reason I say so is that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury referred repeatedly to that before, and that the instructions by the chairman of the board were that they were to be collected by 30th March. I find now that no instructions of any kind were issued by the Treasury, and this must refer to instructions by the chairman. The answer given by my right hon. Friend was that the money of

  1451
  the company should be paid on or by 30th March. That was an instruction for the money to come in before the end of the financial year, because the previous financial year there were considerable arrears, and the chairman of the board wanted to make it perfectly clear that he wanted the money in before 30th March, so as to get it into the financial year. That is the ex-
  planation given by the chairman of the board on that particular instruction, so that the word "to" must be a misprint for the word "by."
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by a sum of £1,000."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 214.

  Division No. 237.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhonoda)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Frewen, Moreton

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Newman, John R. P.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Astor, Waldorf

  Grant, J. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gretton, John

  O'Grady, James

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

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

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

  Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. Wiliam

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

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

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hardle, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Barnston, H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Royds, Edmund

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

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rutherford, Wm. (W. Derby)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hills, John Waller

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Snowden, Philip

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Spear, John Ward

  Butcher, John George

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stanier, Beville

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cator, John

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Keswick, William

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Gershom

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worcr.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Swift, Rigby

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lansbury, George

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Law, Andrew Boner (Bootle, Lancs.)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Crack, Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Croft, Henry Page

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

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

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Younger, George

  Finlay, Sir Robert

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Moore, William

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

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

  Adamson, William

  Bethell Sir J. H.

  Clough, William

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Cotton, William Francis

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Cowan, W. H.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Crooks, William

  Beale, W. P.

  Cameron, Robert

  Crumley, Patrick

  Beauchamp, Edward

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Dawes, J. A.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Delany, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Reddy, Michael

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Doris, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Duffy, William J.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Melton)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rowlands, James

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lundon, Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Falconer, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Maclean, Donald

  Sheehy, David

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shortt, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Furness, Stephen

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  M'Kean, John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Gibson, Sir James Puckering

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Toulmin, George

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Molloy, Michael

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Hackett, John

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L (Rossendale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Wardle, George J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Whyte, A. F.

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilkle, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Hinds, John

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Williams, Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Hodge, John

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

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pointer, Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

  LOCAL TAXATION COMMITTEE (MR. HARPER'S APPOINTMENT).
  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am glad that I shall not have to come even within measurable distance of making any grave charges of dishonesty or anything of that kind against any Government Department. But I wish to complain most strongly of the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the whole question of the relative amount of taxation which ought to be paid by the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was unfortunately absent from the House in February
  1454
  and March. We all regret that he was ill, and we all rejoice to see him back in the vigour of health which he has displayed to-day. A part of the time that he was absent was occupied most benevolently, as he showed us the other day when he adumbrated that great scheme which I hope he will carry, with the assistance of all parties, to a, completely successful issue. But part of the time was not occupied so benevolently. I cannot help thinking that there was a little malevolence on his part in regard to this question of the readjustment of taxation between the Imperial Exchequer and local authorities. The Committee will remember that in February last I moved an

  1455
  Amendment to the Address complaining of the conduct of the Government in not mentioning this matter in the King's Speech. On that occasion we strongly reproached the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having broken the solemn pledge which he gave to the House last year, that if he were to stand at that box this year as Chancellor of the Exchequer he would deal thoroughly with this much-delayed question. We quoted his own speech and the speech of Lord Crewe, who, in the House of Lords, gave most categorical assurances that this year the question would be practically dealt with, and declared that local authorities might be assured that they would obtain some substantial relief whenever any Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at that box to tell us how he would disburse the money which he was collecting from the nation by way of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman will stand at that box for that purpose on Tuesday next, and I still hope that he may have something to say that will be, if not altogether, at any rate partially satisfactory to local authorities, and that he will be able this year to find money to redress the grievances from which local authorities have so long suffered.
  As a result of the Amendment to the Address, we obtained some satisfaction from the Secretary to the Treasury. I suggested to the Government that they might at once appoint a small Committee of financial experts to go into the question, with a view to bringing up to date the proposals of the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Royal Commission of 1901, and to making some estimate of the new charges which have been put on local authorities by various Acts of various Governments—and by no Government so much as by the present—thereby arriving at some conclusion as to what redress might be given to local authorities out of Imperial funds. At the end of the Debate our hopes were raised by a promise from the Secretary to the Treasury that a Committee should be immediately set up to deal practically with the question—not to delay it, but to deal with it in a speedy manner, and to obtain information on which the Government might quickly act in giving at least some interim redress for these grievances. I was the more pleased when a little later on the Secretary to the Treasury informed me that the Government were willing not only to set up the Committee, but, from the London point of view, to accept some
  1456
  representative of London interests upon that Committee. He informed me, in his letter, that I must treat the matter as confidential until he had seen me. After he had seen me he informed me—and at least one other Member of this House—who the gentleman was that the Government proposed to have on the Committee, and he instructed me to make inquiries as to whether that particular official could be spared to serve. Then came a most extraordinary development on the part, of His Majesty's Government. Acting on my instructions, I proceeded to review the whole of the business likely to come before the London County Council during the next few months. I interviewed the gentleman named—the comptroller of the county council, Mr. Haward. I asked him whether he would be willing to serve,' and whether he thought there was anything in the way of the business of the county council that could possibly prevent his giving the time for such an inquiry if he were asked to serve. I certainly was left under the full impression that the county council were to be honoured by His Majesty's Government by being allowed to choose a representative.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Choose?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes. I left under the impression that the county council were to be allowed to choose a representative, that we were to be allowed to put forward the name of the man who in our opinion would best represent the interests of the ratepayers of London. What is the whole of the dispute in this connection? It is a dispute between the local authorities and the Imperial Exchequer as to how the expenditure of the country should be apportioned between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities. That is the dispute. That is the main contention that was running all through the inquiry of the Royal Commission which reported in 1901. That Royal Commission, as everybody knows, both in the Majority and in the Minority Reports, came to the conclusion, and published their conclusions, that if equity were done as between the taxpayer and the ratepayer that the ratepayer ought to contribute very much less and the taxpayer ought to contribute very much more towards the total expenditure of this country. We have constantly pleaded here and elsewhere that London has a very special claim and a very special grievance of its own against the Imperial Exchequer. I believed, and

  1457
  all my colleagues believed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious and willing that on the Committee which he was about to appoint to furnish him and the Government with information, that. London should have some representative whom it thoroughly trusted to put forward its case, and to see, so far as London was concerned, that this case had some chance of being put forward fairly, and having justice done to it, as in the case of the county and borough authorities, or any other authorities.
  We were immensely surprised a few days afterwards when we were told that there was one person whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have on that Committee, and that was the comptroller of the London County Council. To this day, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not have upon that Committee the one man whom the majority of the London County Council, and I believe I may say the minority, too, desired to have upon that Committee to represent London. Why will not, why would not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer have that gentleman? One would have thought that he would have had the man who is the greatest authority on this subject in the whole of London. Mr. Haward is a man of recognised authority in the United Kingdom on this subject, a man who has written much upon this subject, and a man who knows probably more about it than any other living man. This was the man that we thought we ought to have to represent London's interest.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what objection he had to Mr. Harper? Does he regard him as incompetent, or without knowledge on the subject?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will answer that question if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer my question when he gets up. Why would he not have the senior officer, Mr. Haward? Does he regard him as incompetent? Does he regard him as unfitted to sit upon this Committee? If he does, why does he? Let me tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is doing something which I will undertake to say has no precedent whatever, and which no Government has ever done.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will promise to answer the hon. Gentleman's question when my turn comes. He is now speaking. Can he tell me what objection he
  1458
  had to Mr. Harper? After all, it is for me to choose; this is a Government Committee, and the hon. Gentleman refused to permit Mr. Harper to become a member of it. I want to ask him what objection he has to Mr. Harper?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is quite a fair bargain. The right hon. Gentleman says he will answer my question as to what objection he had to Mr. Haward, as to why he would not accept the service of the senior officer, the comptroller of the London County Council. He asks, "Why do I object to Mr. Harper?" I will tell him. I say it is a gross affront to the senior officer, the comptroller of the London County Council, to select a subordinate officer to sit upon that Committee, and to pass by Mr. Haward after his distinguished services to the public. Here we have on the county council a gentleman in the position of Mr Haward, our senior financial officer, who has occupied that position for many years and to whom we have just offered the extraordinary and exceptional salary of £2,500 a year in order to prevent him going elsewhere, because we have such enormous confidence in his ability, and in his special knowledge of this great question which has now been carried on so long between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authorities. That is one reason. I say that that is good enough almost in itself. Recollect I did not go to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He came to me. I did not suggest the name of Mr. Halyard. He suggested the name of Mr. Haward. Mr. Haward is no creation of ours. Mr. Haward is a creation of the Progressive party. He was appointed to his present position by the Progressive party. I do not know whether he belongs to any party. Certainly he does not belong to the party to which I belong. He has no connection, so far as I know, with any political body. For years past Mr. Haward has been attacking every Government in turn on this question. When sometimes I am told: "Oh, this is a party manœuvre on your part; you are a Conservative and the right hon. Gentleman is a Liberal or a Radical," I reply, "Nothing of the kind, I have simply inherited my views from Lord Welby and others who have served the opposite party on the London County Council."
  Everybody who has ever examined this case has come to the conclusion that London has a special grievance and a special claim against the Exchequer. I now go

  1459
  back to the right hon. Gentleman's question: Why we would not allow Mr. Harper to serve on the committee. We wrote a letter to the right hon. Gentleman when he suggested the name of Mr. Harper instead of that of Mr. Haward. We informed him that London would expect its senior officer to be the person to represent London's interests on that Committee, particularly as he was a man of almost world-wide reputation on this question. We did not—and do not—disparage Mr. Harper's great abilities when we suggested in our letter that Mr. Haward ought to give evidence before the Committee if that Committee was to take evidence. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman another reason. He belongs to the dominant party in this House. I happen to lead the dominant party in another House. After all, if anybody's policy should be represented it should be that of the dominant party. We had the utmost confidence that Mr. Haward would represent the views of the dominant party. And the views of the dominant party, let the House recollect, are shared in the main at the present time by the minority of the London County Council. What views does the right hon. Gentleman want represented on behalf of that body? Is it the views of Mr. Harper? I admit Mr. Harper's great ability. But Mr. Harper is known to have very special and very pronounced and extreme views on the question of Land Values Taxation. That is the real reason, I suspect, why the right hon. Gentleman wants Mr. Harper and not Mr. Haward. He wants reflected a. current that will run right throughout his Report. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman does desire to get out of that Committee some report in favour of those notions which I think he largely himself imbibed from Mr. Harper when he used to consult Mr. Harper on the land values proposals contained in his Budget.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman admits that; he admits he was in the habit of consulting Mr. Harper on the land values taxation. Surely, after all, what the London ratepayer wants is somebody who will put forward the London ratepayers' case fearlessly and independently against the Government; somebody who will not in any way be in the power of the Government, and not somebody whose views are well known to the
  1460
  Government on land values taxation, and who is likely to write a report very much on the lines on which the right hon. Gentleman desires the report to be written. That is a very good reason why we did not desire Mr. Harper. That reason has been very much strengthened by the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman during the last few weeks in the case of Mr. Harper. When he was unable to obtain the services of Mr. Harper, and when he refused the services of Mr. Haward, something occurred. Mr. Harper resigned his position as statistical officer of the London County Council in order to serve upon this Committee. He threw up a position worth £1,100 a year, and a pension right of £600 a year. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Government had offered Mr. Harper any appointment in the future, or intended to give him any appointment in place of that which he had resigned in order to oblige His Majesty's Government by serving upon the Committee. We on this side received the answer that the right hon. Gentleman would not preclude himself from making use of Mr. Harper's services in any capacity hereafter, paid or unpaid.
  That is quite a sufficient reason why Mr. Harper cannot be held to represent independently the views of the London ratepayer against the Government. Mr. Harper, in all probability, is about to enter the service of the Government, and the result of that, of course, will be that, from our point of view, inasmuch as we ratepayers are opponents of the Government, he will be merely a Government wolf in the left-off clothing of a county council lamb. When his report comes to be given it will be the report of an official who either is to obtain a very important place with a very big salary from His Majesty's Government, or is looking to that Government to give him a place of at least greater importance and greater magnificence than that which he occupied under the London County Council. Under these circumstances we say that anyone who either has become a Government official or is about to become a Government official is not in that position of fair-mindedness towards the London ratepayers' case and of independence towards the Government that we have a right to expect from anybody put upon that Committee which is going to report, and on the basis of whose report the readjustment for years to come is going to take place between the Imperial Exchequer and the local authority.

  1461
  I think I have adequately answered the question put to me as to why would not the London County Council allow Mr. Harper to represent their interests on this Committee, and why they did insist on having Mr. Haward, if they were to be represented at all by any official. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he gets up will answer my question just as directly and with as little evasiveness as I have answered his. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I have not evaded this question in any way.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have told the right hon. Gentleman quite frankly why we did not want Mr. Harper to be our representative. I hope he will tell the Committee why he took the very extraordinary course—a course absolutely without precedent—of passing over this senior official, the greatest financial official probably that any municipal body has ever had, and putting upon his Committee another official occupying, as I say—although a man of great ability, I do not in the least deny that—a position of a very subordinate character to that of Mr. Haward.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman says "No." He is not occupying a position of a very subordinate character? Well, here is one man, the comptroller of the greatest county council in the world, of the largest local authority in the world, having something like £15,000,000 to look after every year, enjoying a salary of £2,500; and here is another officer enjoying a salary of £1,100 a year—one of our chief officers, it is true, but a man altogether in a very inferior position to that occupied by Mr. Haward. I am really surprised that the right hon. Gentleman with his great acumen should even contest that case at all. I should like to know this. Here is a Committee which I understand now is to consist of thirteen members. What we desired when we moved that Amendment, and what I suggested, was that a Committee should be formed—a small committee of financial experts, to bring up to date the conclusion and figures embodied in the Report of the Royal Commission of 1901. What has the right hon. Gentleman given us. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a Committee, half of which is composed of officials and the other half representing different in-
  1462
  terests. There are two ways of forming committees, one is to have a really judicial committee, none of whose members should in any way be partisans. I think it would be far better to use that form than the other, which is a Committee of partisans possibly representing conflicting interests, and to fight it out, with a chairman to see fair play. That appears to be the method the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. When the right hon. Gentleman adopted that method he might at least have seen to it that London was represented not by an official of the Government, or one who is to become an official of the Government, but by one who would be able to hold his own in this body, and that London should have its champion in the arena in which these thirteen gentlemen are to contend.
  I should like to ask is that Committee going to take evidence or not. If the Committee is merely bound to bring the facts and figures of the Royal Commission up to date, I do not see why they should take evidence, at all events, not more than documentary evidence. But if that Committee is going to develop a new theory on local taxation; if it is going seriously to discuss the well-known theory on taxation held by Mr. Harper, that you could do away with the present rating system altogether if only you would raise your revenue from taxes upon the capital value of land, then I say that a matter of that grave kind and character affecting not only urban interests but rural interests, ought not to be the subject of inquiry by a single Committee not open to the public, but ought to be the subject of an inquiry by a Committee formed in the way committees are usually formed, taking evidence openly, or ought to be the subject of some such Royal Commission as that of 1901. This, to my mind, is a very important matter. I should like to know a little more specifically first, whether that Committee is to take evidence, and, next, whether this Committee is to go deeply into this important question of land value taxation, and is to bring up more recommendations on which the Government may frame legislation of that character hereafter. If that is going to be the case, we may abandon any hope of this question being settled next year. If the Committee is to develop new theories on the taxation of land values, and that upon that this House is to be called upon to legislate hereafter, then I say there is no chance whatever of this House dealing with this

  1463
  very important question next year, or of a substantial Grant being given to local authorities out of the Imperial Exchequer.
  Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that this case has become extremely aggravated, not only by legislation up to the present time, but by the administration of His Majesty's present Government, and particularly in the region of education. Two claims of expenditure are being forced upon the local authorities at the present time, by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education presides. There is one proposal at present which the County Council of London is discussing with His Majesty's Government, which, if it is adopted, will at once lead to a capital expenditure of £2,000,000 on the rates of London, and an annual maintenance expenditure of £500,000 a year, amounting to something like a 2½d. rate. That is one little proposal put forward by the Board of Education at the present time. I am not going to occupy the time of the Committee with a long disquisition on this question of local and Imperial taxation. I had my opportunity in February last. But I want to inform the right hon. Gentleman that for many years past these acute and burning questions have constituted a great grievance on the part of the local authorities and the ratepayers, and are becoming aggravated every day almost by the attitude of various Departments of the Government towards local expenditure, and that the time has come when he ought to give an absolute assurance to this House that he will give to the local authorities some Grant, if not this year, then next year, in order that partially, at all events, some of these grievances may be redressed. In conclusion I must move, in order that the discussion may be carried on, a reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman by £100.
  Question proposed: "That item A be reduced by £100."
  Mr. MOUNT: I should like to support what fell from my hon. Friend who has just sat down as regards the unsatisfactory nature of the Committee which is being set up in regard to the question of local taxation. I approach the matter from a different point of view from that of my hon. Friend, but I entirely endorse what he said in regard to what he calls the great mistake of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government, in having
  1464
  adopted the principle of appointing their Committee of a number of gentlemen who represent certain definite interests. I have always felt that Committees such as this ought to be composed of financial experts and men with open minds not pledged in any way to any particular experiments and not in any way supposed to hold watching briefs for particular in terests. That is not the attitude adopted, or the action taken, by His Majesty's Government in regard to this Committee. They have adopted the principle of appointing their Committee from representatives of various interests which they believe to be affected, and if they adopted that principle they ought to take the very greatest care that the interests particularly affected should have proper representation upon the Committee. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has shown that with regard to London the ratepayers are not likely to be satisfied with the representative appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  There is another interest, which is, I think, quite as deeply concerned, in fact I think more deeply concerned, with regard to this question of local taxation, even than London. We know the grievance London suffers under. I refer to the rural industries and the agricultural interests. I am not going now—it would be out of order to attempt to do so—in any way whatever to deal with the question of local taxation. But I should like to remind the Committee of this, that what this Committee has to inquire into are the changes which took place since the Royal Commission reported in 1901. And I think anyone who takes any interest in this matter, or has watched this question of local taxation since that time, must recognise that the great additional burdens that have been put upon local ratepayers have been mainly under the heads either of Education or Highways. On both of these questions I think it would not be difficult to show that the real advantages that have accrued in the matters of Education and Highways have been to the benefit of the urban rather than the rural ratepayers. I am not going to go into these questions at the present time, but I should like further to point out that not only are the objects for which these burdens are imposed more for the benefit of the urban than the rural ratepayer, but that the rural ratepayer is less fitted now to bear the burden which falls upon him.
  I should like to remind the Committee that in the last Report of the Local Taxa-

  1465
  tion Account it was shown while there had been a decrease in the rateable value of agricultural land of 2.2 per cent., there had been an increase of 32.5 per cent, in other hereditaments. It must be obvious to anyone that if your rateable value has fallen you are less able to bear the burden placed upon you than if your rateable value has increased. I think anyone who has any knowledge of rural districts knows that not only has the rateable value gone down, but that the rates have gone up. I should like to give an instance of the value of land—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member himself stated it was not in order to discuss a matter that obviously required legislation. The only point here is the effect of the appointment of this Committee.
  Mr. MOUNT: I was only trying to show the special grievance under which agricultural ratepayers have to suffer, and that they ought to have further representation upon the Committee. If you rule I am not entitled to go further as to the question of the burden placed upon agricultural lands I will not pursue the matter.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: On a point of Order. May I submit this is not a question that will require legislation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has it in his power by administration and by the application of Budget sums for the relief of local taxation, to deal with the whole question which my hon. Friend is raising.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of Order. May I submit that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman would certainly involve legislation. The Budget statement cannot deal with it in any way. I know of no other way than by legislation in some shape or form. The point raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Mount) as to whether we are to have more agriculturists upon the Committee does, I think, come in.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The constitution of the Committee is quite in order, but in respect to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), I must remind him this question has been discussed on the Budget on many occasions in my recollection, but never in Committee of Supply, and I think it would not be in order to discuss it in Committee of Supply.
  Mr. MOUNT: I was only going to point out the increased burden upon agriculture.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SLIGO CORPORATION BILL.—[By Order.]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Mr. LONSDALEmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  In moving that the consideration of this Bill be postponed, I think it is only due to the House that I should state my reasons for intervening in a matter which is not connected with my own constituency. I do not, however, think that I need offer any apology for the action I am taking; because I represent in this matter the Unionist or Protestant ratepayers of the town of Sligo. They are a strong minority in that town; and they pay more than half the local rates. They are entirely without representation on the Corporation of Sligo—which is promoting this Bill—and they have to look to the Unionist Members from Ireland to see that their views in regard to this Bill are laid before the House of Commons. I have said that there is no Unionist or Protestant on the Sligo Corporation; but, indeed, Sir, the case is very much worse than that. There is not a single Unionist representative upon any of the public bodies in the county of Sligo.
  The corporation—the county council—the Governors of the asylum, the infirmary committee, the rural district councils, and the boards of guardians—each and all of them are exclusively Nationalist. I commend that fact to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so willing to take at their face value the professions of toleration which the Nationalists are making so lavishly at the present time. In Sligo we have an example of Nationalism in practice, and I venture to say that it is an instructive sidelight on Home Rule. This Bill has been introduced because the town of

  1467
  Sligo is unable to meet its liabilities. So far as I can understand, it is practically in a state of insolvency. That is the condition to which it has been reduced by the Nationalist Corporation. And that, I venture to think, is the condition in which the whole of Ireland would be placed if the country were under Nationalist control.
  The Nationalists of Sligo are great believers in the virtues of a loan—as a means of escaping from financial difficulties. This Bill is neither more nor less than a borrowing Bill, and it proposes to give the Corporation of Sligo practically unlimited powers of borrowing. The history of this proposal—as it is revealed in the Preamble of the Bill itself—is most peculiar. The Corporation have a debt of some £11,700, which is charged on the security of the borough rate. Sligo is governed by a local Act—and in that Act a limit is placed on the amount of the borough rate. It cannot exceed in any year 4s. 6d. in the pound. No doubt when that limit was fixed it allowed an ample margin for meeting all the necessities of the town. But it has proved far too narrow for the Nationalist corporation.
  The amount produced by the borough rate—at the full limit of 4s. 6d. in the pound—has been altogether insufficient to satisfy the corporation's thirst for expenditure. Year after year there has not been enough money in the exchequer to pay the interest on the loan of £11,700, and to make the repayments of principal as they fell due. Five years ago—as it is recited in the preamble—there was a sum of £3,000 owing by the corporation in respect of unpaid interest on and instalments of principal of the said sum of £11,719. What did the corporation do? They resorted to a loan. They could not pay the interest on the debt which they were liable for, and so they proceeded to borrow more money and contract fresh liabilities, making their position more hopeless than ever. The corporation borrowed £3,000 on the personal security of certain members of the corporation, and with this money they cleared off the arrears of interest on the original debt.
  Since then there has been a further accumulation of unpaid interest and instalments of principal, both on the original loan and on the new debt of £3,000. Consequently we have the corporation coming to this House and asking for power to contract a fresh loan, to enable them to re-
  1468
  pay the £3,000 which they have borrowed, and to pay the outstanding interest. At the same time they ask for the removal of the existing limit upon the borough rate. They practically ask for unlimited borrowing powers and unlimited spending powers; and I must say that, with their financial record, the Nationalist Corporation of Sligo are not entitled to ask for such wide powers. A very large number of the people of Sligo are of the same opinion. In fact, I am told on good authority that a great majority of the residents in Sligo are opposed to this Bill.
  The rates in the town are at present over 10s. in the pound, and there is a very natural fear among all classes of the ratepayers that this Bill will mean a heavy addition to their burdens. The ratepayers of Sligo who oppose this Bill maintain that the present receipts of the borough could be increased without an addition to the rates. They recommend that there should be a re-valuation of the property in the town. This would not be satisfactory to the local publicans, who are strongly represented on the corporation; but it would undoubtedly increase the yield of the present borough rate, and ensure a more equitable distribution of the burden. The corporation might obtain a larger revenue from the thirty acres of common lands which they control if they let them for grazing purposes. They might secure a portion of the agricultural grant to which the borough is clearly entitled. They might reduce official salaries. Instead of making any attempt in this direction, they have recently appointed a borough treasurer, which, of course, is an entirely unnecessary office. The salary paid to this official might be saved. The revenue of the borough could be increased if more attention was paid to the proper collection of the rates. Money might be saved if the debts of the corporation were consolidated.
  I mention these points to show that this Bill is unnecessary. I submit that with proper and more efficient administration and the exercise of reasonable economy, there should be no need to increase the rates of Sligo. I may point out that in 1905 the Corporation of Sligo applied for increased rating powers. There was a Local Government Board inquiry, at which the ratepayers pointed out the various ways in which the corporation could save money. As the result of that inquiry the application of the corporation was refused. Nothing has happened since to justify a

  1469
  reversal of the decision of the Local Government Board on that occasion. The corporation have not effected economics; they have not utilised the resources of the borough, and the ratepayers view with alarm the present proposal to give unlimited powers of rating to this Nationalist body in whom they have no confidence. At all events, when the Bill was submitted to a meeting of the ratepayers on 1st March, it was there and then rejected by a large majority. The promoters of the Bill demanded a poll—as they were fully entitled to do—and they obtained a nominal majority in favour of the Bill. They accomplished this result by making the question a party one. According to the posters which they issued—and which I have seen—the issue was between Nationalism and Unionism. The ratepayers were reminded that the Sligo Corporation is a Nationalist body, and that the opposition to this Bill was simply a device by the Unionists to discredit the corporation. One of the councillors, speaking at a public meeting on the eve of the poll, introduced, I am sorry to say, the religious element into the controversy. He—
  "thanked God fervently that he had lived to see the day when the Sligo Corporation was composed of twenty-four Roman Catholics."
  I may say that no less than twelve of the councillors are publicans, in addition to one representative of a brewery. This member of the corporation, who I am informed is vice-president of the Hibernian Society, invoked the name and authority of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in support of the Bill.
  "John Redmond (I am quoting the words of Councillor Jinks) is in favour of this Bill, and, if you strike a blow against the corporation, you strike a blow against John Redmond."
  He went on to say:—
  "Vote for the Bill ! By doing so, you will return one vote for Irish nationality, a vote for Irish independence and for Home Rule."
  He taunted the Unionists with having no voice in Sligo to-day. He said:—
  "Their days are done in Sligo, thank God, and the days are coming when Nationalists shall adorn every public Board in Sligo."
  These appeals by members of the corporation to political prejudice and religious animosity can have but one meaning. They indicate that the Nationalists of Sligo, having got the Unionists into the position described by the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as the "under dog," are determined to use their power with absolute intolerance. I do not think there can be the least doubt that, if voting had been secret, and the ratepayers had been
  1470
  free from party pressure, the Bill would have been rejected at the poll as it was at the public meeting. Even with all the pressure which the Nationalists were able to exercise, they could not induce anything like a majority of the ratepayers to vote for the Bill. There are 2,474 ratepayers on the register, but out of this number only 744 actually voted for the Bill, that is to say, less than one-third of the total electorate. More than one half of the constituency did not vote at all; and we are entitled to assume that most of those who abstained did so because they were afraid to vote against the Bill.
  I oppose the further progress of this Bill on three grounds. In the first place, I do not think any public body in the position of the Sligo Corporation should be given practically unlimited powers of borrowing and spending money. In the second place, I maintain that the Nationalist Corporation of Sligo have proved themselves incapable of managing the affairs of the town, and are not entitled to any extension of their existing powers. And, in the third place, I contend that this Bill does not command the approval, not only of the Unionists of Sligo, who are the largest ratepayers, but of the majority of the people, irrespective of politics or creed. I may point out there has been no opportunity for a thorough examination of this proposal at an earlier stage. Owing to a misunderstanding, the Second Reading was obtained without opposition; and it has passed through Committee without that thorough investigation which is given to an opposed Bill. I think I am justified therefore, in asking the House not to proceed further with a Bill which will certainly increase both the rates and the rents of Sligo, but will not place the finances of that borough upon a sounder basis or confer any benefit upon the inhabitants.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I rise for the purpose of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I think the House will have seen from what fell from him that the Unionists of Sligo are very much interested in this Bill. He has pointed out that, although the Unionists and Protestants of Sligo pay at least one-half of the rates of the borough, there is not a single representative of their number upon the borough council. The House will, I have no doubt, recollect the repeated statements which have been made by Nationalist Members that it was their desire and wish that the Unionists should have proper representation on these boards to which a

  1471
  large proportion of the rates was paid by them, although they were not numerically strong enough to ensure the election of one of their own number. We all remember the promises made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in 1898, when the Local Government Bill was passing through this House. He said that in exactly similar cases to these the Nationalists would see to it that Protestants and Unionists would have proper representation, and yet, in the case of a borough like Sligo, where a large part of the business of the town is conducted by Unionists, who pay at least one half of the rates, they are not allowed a single representative on the corporation.
  The object of the opposition which we are presenting to this Bill to-night is that the Sligo Council should not be allowed to extricate themselves from the difficulty into which they have got through rotten finance, through extravagance, and through not attending to the affairs of the borough in a businesslike and a proper way. There are many ways by which this comparatively small sum asked for by this Bill can be raised. My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of the re-valuation of the borough, and that, I think, would be the most natural, as well as the easiest way to get over the difficulty. The information at our disposal indicates that the corporation property is not managed as it ought to be, and that a larger income might well be attained from it. Again, we are led to understand that, in the relations between the borough council and the county council there has been a lack of businesslike qualities, and, at this moment, Sligo is paying far more in the way of county charges than it ought to do. We are told, for instance, that the Sligo Corporation are paying for the maintenance of the roads from thirty to forty miles outside the town, and that, on the last occasion on which an effort was made to regulate the relations between the borough and the county councils, that important point was not dealt with. The difficulty which this Bill is to remedy might in quite a short time be overcome by an adjustment of the entire financial relations between the borough and county councils.
  A great deal of this indebtedness has been brought about by reckless extravagance and want of businesslike qualities on the part of the council of Sligo, and we suggest that they should get proper finan-
  1472
  cial advisers and should elect on the council business men who will find it quite easy to extricate them from the difficulty in which they find themselves without the necessity of passing a Bill of this kind. My hon. Friend has told the House that the ratepayers, when first consulted, absolutely refused to let this Bill proceed, but the promoters, being determined to get their £3,000, asked for a poll, and from that time onwards the struggle was conducted on political and religious grounds. My hon. Friend has referred to a meeting held on the day before the poll, and I have here a, copy of the "Sligo Independent," which gives a full report of the speeches. I should like to read a few extracts. Councillor Jinks was apparently the principal speaker. The meeting was heralded, I should say, by the Nationalist bands in the town being turned out to beat up the Nationalists and to assemble them in front of the Town Hall. I want to give a few extracts from the speech of Councillor Jinks to prove that this matter was made one entirely of religion and politics, and that it was that fact alone which secured for the Bill a majority of votes among the ratepayers. Councillor Jinks said:—
  "I would advise you to support the Bill and to back up the Nationalist Corporation—not to hack up your enemies of yesterday who are your professed friends of to-day. … Are the Tories of this town to walk on the Catholics of Sligo?…I am proud to see such a demonstration of intelligent public opinion, I am proud to see men of intelligence in a town like Sligo here to-night backing up the Bill of the corporation. (Hear, hear, and a Voice: To Hell with the Tories)."
  I submit that that is not exactly the way in which to approach matters of this kind. Councillor Jinks went on to say:—
  "Men of Sligo do not be cajoled by threats. You have twenty-four members on the corporation, twenty-four Catholics, thank God; twenty-four members who are prepared to do their best to govern the town of Sligo fair and square."
  I think that is a most disgraceful reference to the religious prejudices of the people. Again he said:—
  "I believe to-morrow, when the votes are counted, they will be found solid for the corporation, an Irish Nationalist body. I appeal to you men of Sligo, as men of integrity-and honesty, as Catholics, and as Irish Nationalists to vote for this Bill. Fellow townsmen, there is more at the back of this than you are aware of. John Redmond, the Leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, who claims to voice the opinions of Ireland, is in favour of the Bill. If you strike a blow against the corporation, you strike a blow against John Redmond. Are you going to follow the dictates of Capt. Craig, of Belfast, or of Tod Sloan? Mind you vote in the first column on behalf of the Corporation Bill, as in doing that you will give a vote for Irish independence, for Irish-nationalism, and for Home Rule."
  I submit that in the face of these expressions it would be ridiculous to say, after

  1473
  having refused to allow this Bill to go forward, that the decision at a poll brought about by the methods employed by Councillor Jinks and others can be regarded by this House of Commons as a proper decision. Let us examine the figures of this poll. There are 2,474 voters on the register, and out of that number only about one-half voted on this Bill, although it was a matter which, according to Councillor Jinks, was of enormous importance; 744 voted for the Bill, and 433 against. I have been unable to find out the exact numbers of Nationalists and Unionists in Sligo, but I do not think I shall be challenged when I say that 433 Unionist ratepayers represent a very much larger proportion of the Unionist ratepayers than 744 do of the Nationalists. I say, therefore, there is a very strong expression of feeling on the part of the Unionists that this Bill should not be proceeded with, and it is a very extraordinary thing that the Nationalists themselves were unable to make the total poll half of the number of the people on the register, and that when they maintain that this is a matter of first-class importance, and that without this Bill being passed the affairs of Sligo will be reduced to chaos and confusion. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to reduce them to a greater state of chaos and confusion than they are in at the present time. I submit that my hon. Friend has made out a clear case in favour of a, small minority which has very little opportunity of making themselves heard in this House. It was impossible for them, owing to the smallness of their number and the comparative smallness of the amount asked for in the measure—it was impossible to expect that they should petition this House against the Bill, and so might be heard in Committee, because, as we know, in the House of Commons a Bill of this sort costs a considerable amount of money. It would only be exposing themselves to further expenditure if they had done so; but they have asked my hon. Friend and myself to state their case to the House. This is why we are raising our voices upon the subject of the Bill, instead of their taking the course of appearing against it before a Committee.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I am sure the House will agree with me that the speeches made by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion are directed rather to arouse in the House political and religious bias—the old object of hon. Gentlemen who sit above the Gangway—than to discuss the merits or
  1474
  demerits of this Bill. Let me point out that from the speech of the hon. Member who has moved this Motion it is quite clear that either he has not read the Bill or, if he has read it, he does not understand it. He falls into the initial error of saying that under this Bill the Sligo Corporation seeks unlimited borrowing powers, and several times in the course of his remarks he repeated that error. He was corrected by the hon. Member for Down, who pointed out that all that the Corporation of Sligo seek for in this Bill is power to borrow a comparatively small sum, and I think that when a question upon a private Bill of a small Corporation is being raised in this House and its valuable time wasted hon. Members who take this course should at least take the initial trouble of learning what they are talking about and what is the nature of the course they are asking the House to pursue. It is pointed out, and this is the great grievance that underlies this whole matter, that the Corporation of Sligo, as at present constituted, is exclusively a Nationalist body. Both of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have read extracts from the speech of one member of the Sligo Corporation, and I regret that they did not read the whole of the speech of that councillor, or, indeed, the whole of the speeches delivered, because I am sure the House would have derived as much pleasure from listening to the eloquence of the councillors as they did from listening to the speeches of the hon. Members. It is true that the Unionists of Sligo are gentlemen who are called Protestants, and they cannot talk politics without introducing religion.
  Mr. LONSDALE: It is not so. It is not we who seek to introduce religious topics; it is hon. Members below the Gangway.
  Mr. SCANLAN: As far as that interruption is concerned I am sure the House will agree with me that hon. Members above the Gangway, especially the hon. Member who moved this Motion, never intervene in any Debate, except with the object of villifying their fellow-countrymen and raising religious prejudice. I am sure that the House is sick to death of this prejudice and that in the present instance they will appraise it at its proper value. One of the hon. Members says that the Unionists and the Protestants of Sligo represent the entire wealth of the town. Does he mean to represent that this small and wealthy portion of the population earn their living and accumulate their wealth

  1475
  by taking in one another's washing? I have lived in Sligo and belong to the place and there is no feeling prevailing there between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Protestants of Sligo are a thriving body of traders. With whom do they trade? Why, with their Catholic fellow-citizens, and I think that is an excellent tribute to the absence of bigotry among the people, as it appears that in Sligo the minority are allowed to thrive and prosper and produce wealth by trading with their fellow Catholic townsmen.
  Let me call the attention of the House to the real meaning of this Bill. There is no proposal in this Bill to seek unlimited borrowing powers, but the corporation ask Parliament for authority to borrow a capital sum of £7,000. Part of this has been incurred already, and for one portion of it a sum of £3,000, the credit of a number of the citizens of Sligo who have served upon the corporation, has been pledged; and these gentlemen stand responsible for the payment of this sum. The first object of this Bill is to enable the corporation of Sligo to repay the principal of this sum with the interest which has been paid for five or six years by those private citizens who have become responsible for the payment of this sum. On reference to the schedule of the Bill it will be found that the only other proposal in it is to give the corporation power to borrow an additional sum of £3,745 and any interest which may be due. Therefore, in the main, the object of the Bill is to ask for power to borrow money which the corporation and the citizens themselves have already paid. How is this Bill promoted? In the first place, and this is a necessity by the municipal law of Ireland, two successive meetings of the corporation were held in November last and in January of this year, and they decided unanimously to petition Parliament for these borrowing powers. Then a small clique of Sligo Tories, disguising its politics under the name of the Ratepayers' Association, protested against the action of the corporation, with the result that, as happens when a proposal for legislation is opposed in this country, it was necessary to take a poll of the ratepayers. In the poll more than half of the ratepayers on the roll voted, and the number who voted for the Bill was 744, and the number who voted against was 433. Therefore a very substantial majority of the citizens of Sligo voted in its favour. Not only that, but
  1476
  before proceeding with this proposal for. legislation, the corporation of Sligo took the precaution of approaching the Irish Local Government Board and got their sanction to borrow this sum, and the Board approved of the Bill. It comes before this House as an unopposed Bill, It goes through all its stages, including the Second Reading, and for some reason best known to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, they do not oppose it at that stage, to which this Debate would be more appropriate than the Report stage.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. Member knows perfectly well why we did not oppose the Second Reading.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I have not the least idea of what induced my hon. Friends below the Gangway to absent themselves from the House when, if they had been present, they might effectually have taken part in the Second Reading Debate.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg leave to say that the hon. Member knows perfectly well.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I do not wish to pursue a personal matter of this kind with the hon. Gentleman, but his statement is quite inconsistent with the facts.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member has any right to say that my statement is absolutely inconsistent with the facts?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a very guarded way of saying it is not true. Perhaps I could throw light on the incident to which the hon. Member refers. The fact was that the Second Reading came on after the time at which hon. Members on my left thought no further opposed business could be taken.
  Mr. SCANLAN: I quite acknowledge that statement, but the hon. Gentleman states I know perfectly well why he was absent. That statement I absolutely contradict. It is a statement as to the state of my mind, and I know at least as much about that as he does. When this matter came before the citizens of Sligo at this Referendum, the proportion of the citizens of Sligo who came out to vote was larger than the proportion of the citizens of other countries who take part in such matters. What happened? The passions of the people were inflamed by the Ratepayers' Association. The gang of slum landlords who compose that association represented that if this Bill were passed the rents of the poor

  1477
  people in Sligo would be doubled. The fact is that the amount asked for in this Bill is an amount which cannot possibly entail more than an additional rate of 6d. in the pound.
  9.0 P.M.
  With reference to the statement that the citizens of Sligo did not elect the friends of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, the friends of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, Conservatives and Unionists, have kept aloof from the corporation. In 1899, the last occasion before the present system of franchise was introduced, two Unionists who stood were elected by substantial majorities, and held seats in the corporation of Sligo for three years. Since then these gentlemen have kept aloof from the affairs of the town. Because they are wealthy they treat themselves as a kind of patrician nobility, and look down upon the body whom they call the Nationalist corporation, and allow them to do all the work and take all the responsibility for the affairs and the finance of the town. They help them in no way, but throw every possible obstacle in the way of the efforts which they make to govern the town. With respect to a revaluation I think it is very likely that it will take place, and when it does I am sure any fair revaluation will throw a bigger burden of taxation on the shoulders which are best able to bear it—those who have the wealth of the town.
  The corporation of Sligo are a very provident body. During the last ten years, as I can show from the audited balance sheet of the corporation, there has been £7,000 of the corporation's debt paid off—£7,000 of the capital expenditure incurred at the time when the friends of hon. Members above the Gangway ruled Sligo and made a mess of the affairs of the town. Let me give one instance, which accounts perhaps better than anything else for the position in which the town finds itself to-day. Over twenty years ago, when the Corporation of Sligo was manned exclusively by the friends of hon. Members above the Gangway, those gentlemen purchased from the feudal landlord the market sites of the town at a cost of about £9,000, and the Sligo Corporation has to pay interest on that money at the rate of over 4 per cent., and in addition to that they have to pay a head rent to the landlord interested in the market sites of the corporation of £289 a year. When the friends of hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway had control of the affairs of Sligo
  1478
  they looked after their own interests and the present generation of taxpayers are not responsible for the misfortunes created by the administration. I resent the attacks made on Sligo. Ever since the Local Government Act was passed the Corporation of Sligo has been run on strictly economical lines. The salaries, instead of being increased, have been cut down, and every effort has been made to effect economies in administration. But at the same time Sligo is hampered by being in a position in which no other town in Ireland finds itself, according to the Report of the Local Government Board. It has a limited rate, whereas there is no limitation whatever on the expenditure which Sligo has to bear.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Charles Craig) offered the suggestion—it is very good of him to offer suggestions to the Corporation of Sligo, but I think they know their own business, and are quite as capable of managing it as he is of managing anything—that the proper way to get rid of the difficulties in which the corporation is placed would be to readjust the relationship between the town of Sligo and the county. He talks of the town of Sligo having to contribute to the upkeep of roads throughout the whole county of Sligo. It is perfectly true that this burden is laid on the town of Sligo, but my friend is a lawyer, and he should know something about the municipal law of Ireland. It is the case that the relationship, so far as taxation and contributions from a borough to a county are concerned, are regulated by the public law of Ireland, and no private effort on the part of the Corporation of Sligo can alter in the slightest the incidence of taxation as between the county and the borough which is seeking for the powers contained in this Bill. In asking the House to pass the Bill I would refer hon. Members to the report of the Committee. Let me point out that the Bill was before a Committee which consisted of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy-Chairman, the hon, Member for Durham, and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, who are colleagues of the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway who are now opposing the Bill, The Bill was carefully considered by the Committee. The mayor of Sligo, the accountant of Sligo, and the solicitor in charge of the affairs of the corporation were examined at considerable length by the Members of the Committee, who devoted most painstaking care to the consideration of the Bill. In their report,

  1479
  which is now before the House, the Committee state:—
  "That the Bill does not give borrowing powers for any purpose for which such powers already exist or may be obtained under general Acts without subjecting the exercise of the powers under the Bill to the approval from time to time by the proper Government Department.
  "That there are no other circumstances of which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desirable that the souse should be informed.
  "The Chairman of Ways and Means further reported from the Committee: That they had examined the allegations of the Bill, and found the same to be true, and had gone through the Bill and made Amendments thereunto."
  In these circumstances, I ask, is it right that a matter which does not concern a soul outside of Sligo should be discussed in the Imperial Parliament? It asks the House to authorise the borrowing of a sum of £7,000 for repairing and cleansing the streets of Sligo alone. Surely it is an abuse of the forms and procedure of the House that the time of the House should be wasted in considering a matter of this kind. Everything has been done in the way of promoting the Bill and the hearing of evidence, and we ought to be able to get what is wanted by local order, but we cannot get a local order. We are compelled to come to this Parliament. If you will give us the opportunity, matters of this kind could be easily settled in Ireland. But as we have to come to this Parliament, having complied with all the regulations, and having obtained for the Bill the approval of a Committee of this House, I ask the House with every confidence to pass the Bill.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I should not have interfered in this Debate but for the fact that I am interested in the town of Sligo as a property owner. At the first blush the Bill is one which I would strongly support. It is in my own financial interest that the Bill should be passed. I have had for a considerable number of years property let to the corporation of Sligo, and unfortunately owing to the financial condition of the town, I have found considerable difficulty in getting my rent. Therefore any proposal for giving a sum of money to the corporation I would be glad to vote for if I considered only my own personal interest. Taking a wider view of the Bill, what I ask the House to consider is whether it is wise to entrust to the present corporation of Sligo a sum of money which they would probably spend, and then possibly come to the House again and ask for a fresh loan. I deprecate, and I am sure most Members of the House
  1480
  deprecate, the introduction of religion or politics into the discussion of a local Bill of this sort. I do not care whether the corporation of Sligo is Nationalist or Unionist, Conservative or Liberal, Protestant or Catholic, but what I do say is, that the corporation of Sligo in the last few years have not shown themselves capable of running that important town. Sligo is the most prosperous town in the west of Ireland. From its geographical position it possesses the best harbour in the west, and that harbour is the natural outlet of a great agricultural district. It has a considerable maritime trade, and it is a town which should go ahead and will go ahead. Unfortunately at the present moment—I do not say whose fault it is—the management of that town is not carried out in the way that any well-conducted town in England, Ireland, or Scotland is carried out. My point is that if you give the Corporation of Sligo an additional sum of money it will only encourage them in their mismanagement. If they get this £3,000, or whatever the sum is, they will think that they have only to come again and ask for £5,000. If the Bill is rejected they will see whether they cannot retrench or whether they cannot raise the money in some other way. I think we should be doing the corporation. a good turn and acting in the best interests of the town of Sligo if we did not pass the Bill but sent it back to the corporation to see if they cannot find some other means of raising the money.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ashley) in saying that this certainly is not a case where either religion or politics ought to be introduced. It certainly is a very perplexing feature of the Debates in regard to Ireland, and not an agreeable state of things, that such subjects should be introduced in a Debate of this nature. The proposals in the Bill are of a very simple character, and I think if properly understood no reasonable objection can be offered to them. It has been pointed out already, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman who is opposing the Bill now accepts the situation, that it is not the case that unlimited power to borrow is to be acquired under the Bill. On the contrary, very limited borrowing power is being sought for. A restriction is provided that the borrowing power shall only extend to £3,000 to be raised of the £11,700, and

  1481
  £3,700 due to Board of Works, together with a further sum amounting to some hundreds of pounds, representing the costs of this Bill. Beyond this there is no borrowing power at all. Anyone who will take the trouble to read Clause 4 will see that at once. I should like briefly to state what was the origin of the £11,700. The Local Government Board in 1904 made an order authorising the council of the borough to provide that sum. The Local Government Act of 1902 conferred on certain councils in Ireland power to defray the yearly expenses by means of loans instead of out of revenue. This is by no means confined to Sligo, but is largely extended throughout the country. In the year 1902 an Act of Parliament was passed in which a section was specially introduced for the purpose of enabling the Local Government Board to authorise those bodies to raise sums of money in order to liquidate the liabilities then created. If the hon. Gentleman will took at the first recital in this Bill he will see that there is a section setting out that in the case of liabilities incurred prior to 1st April, 1902, the Local Government Board could, if they thought fit, give borrowing powers to local bodies for the money in order to liquidate the liabilities Accordingly, under the Bill of 1904, the Local Government Board, having made, I suppose, many other orders, made an order in favour of the Sligo council that they should have the power of borrowing to the amount of £11,700 to liquidate these old liabilities. It was found immediately after the order was passed that, though the power to borrow was given, the limit that was placed upon the borough rate, was not taken off, that limit being 4s. 6d. in the £, under the provisions of the two local Acts, which apply to Sligo and to Sligo alone in. Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the position of Sligo in that respect is absolutely unique. Under its own local Acts it is absolutely restricted to a rate of 4s. 6d., which under no circumstances can be exceeded. Therefore, the unique position was realised that the council had got an order of the Local Government Board made in pursuance of the Act of 1902, authorising them to borrow £11,700, but, owing to the limit placed by the Acts on the rate, there was no money to pay the interest upon the borrowed sum. Accordingly, between 1904 and 1906, liabilities to the extent of £3,000 accumulated in respect of the sums that were borrowed, and in June, 1906, some of the councillors personally went security with
  1482
  the bank in order to raise the sum of £3,000 that was necessary to pay the interest accrued up to that time, which there was no money to pay for owing to the limit I have mentioned in the rate. That is the first sum that is sought to be defrayed by this Bill, to raise which borrowing powers are being given. It seems but commonsense and common fairness that as the Local Government Board considered, in 1904, that there was a case for giving authority to raise a loan to the extent of £11,000, it would not be just or fair to the individual members of the body who have supplied the £3,000 out of their own money that power should not be given to repay them.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how they propose to pay the interest on the £11,700, that is, on the £3,000 they have borrowed, and on the further loans?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: That is perfectly simple. What is provided by this Bill is that the limit of 4s. 6d., which I have referred to, shall be extended for the purposes of this borrowing, and until this particular sum of £6,000 that is now going to be raised is paid off that limit of 4s. 6d. will be extended, whether it be to 5s. or 5s. 6d., as the case may be. As soon as that sum is liquidated the old limit at once returns, and cannot be passed for any other purpose except to raise the £7,000 provided for in this Bill. The other sum involved is a sum of £3,700 due to the Board of Works in connection with public works. They are indicated in the schedule,' and consist of loans obtained for water works, sanitary purposes, and the building of artisans' dwellings. These liabilities were all perfectly bonâ fide incurred by the Council in the course of the administration of their office. There is no suggestion that there was any waste of the money. Had there been a waste of the money the Local Government Board never would and never could have sanctioned a loan of £11,000 in order to defray these sums. The very character of the works mentioned in the schedule shows that the moneys were for works legitimately undertaken by the Council; but the Council are in the unique position in Ireland of being absolutely bound hand and foot by that restriction of 4s. 6d. in their rates, and this Bill has no other object in the world than to remove that limit for the time being, in order to enable these particular sums to be discharged. That is the case as we understand it. It

  1483
  is one which is wholly free from any question of politics or religion. I think it a most deplorable thing that these questions should be brought forward, and I will ask the House to approve of the Bill.
  Mr. O'DOWD: The hon. Member (Mr. Ashley) who spoke a few moments ago about Sligo and its mismanagement forgot to tell the House that Sligo is one of the few towns in Ireland that have increased in population during the last fifty years. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill spoke, as usual, of the spirit of bigotry and religious intolerance existing in Sligo. I suppose that their speeches would not be perfect unless the question of religious intolerance came in. As a Sligo man who is intimately connected with the borough of Sligo, and as chairman of the Sligo County Council, which has a financial connection with the borough of Sligo, I may point out that the Local Government Act of 1898 changed the financial relations existing between the Borough and the Council of Sligo. Therefore, to meet the requirements of the time, it was absolutely necessary that improvements neglected by the former Tory body, whether they were grand juries or corporations, had to be carried out in order to bring the county and the borough up to date. Bridges required to be built, roads which were neglected in the good old Tory times had to be made, and there was greater expenditure necessary not alone for the borough but for the county of Sligo. The people, when they got the local government of the country into their own hands, bent themselves to the work of improving what was formerly neglected by their Tory predecessors, and therefore additional expenditure, for which good value was got, had to be
  undertaken by the county, district, and borough councils of Ireland. Now, so far as the case against the Bill is concerned, there is nothing in it. The borrowing powers are being extended by £7,000 for the purpose of meeting liabilities incurred for works that are absolutely necessary in the interests of the public. We hear a lot about our Tory predecessors as grand jurors, but I can say as chairman of the Sligo County Council that our predecessors handed us down n legacy of £1,570 debt as a result of their economic action, which we had to pay last year. That is the legacy of debt left to us by our Tory predecessors. There is no case against the Bill at all. Every fair-minded man on both sides of the House whose conduct is regulated by fairplay and honesty, should vote for this Bill. The people of Sligo are well able to pay the £7,000, and, really, I am amazed at hon. Members above the Gangway interfering in business which does not in the slightest degree concern them or any one of them. The Ratepayers' Association of Sligo is a gang of narrow-minded Orange bigots, who, I assert from this bench, do not possess the confidence of moderate Conservatives of the county of Sligo, whom we all respect, and with whom, I, personally, live on the best possible terms, although I am against them politically. This gang of narrow-minded bigots could get no person to voice their sentiments—either English, Scotch, or Welsh, and they had to go to Ulster, where, of course, they succeeded in getting the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Mr. Lonsdale) to present their case. I hope the House will accept this measure, which I have great pleasure in supporting.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 238.

  AYES.

  [9.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Doris, William

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Cameron, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Adamson, William

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

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Clough, William

  Emmett, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E)

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Barnes, George N.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beale, W. P.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Crawshay, Williams, Eliot

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Gelder, Sir W. H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Goldstone, Frank

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Gulland, John William

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hackett, John

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  McGhee, Richard

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

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

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meehan, Francis E, (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Hills, J. W.

  Molloy, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hinds, John

  Molteno, Percy Alpert

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

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sheehy, David

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Taylor, John D. (Durham)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Verney, Sir Harry

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Watt, Henry A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Keating, Matthew

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

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

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pirie, Duncan Vernon

  Wilkle, Alexander

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Wilson, J. (Durham, Mid.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickiade)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, George Heynes

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Lyell, C. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Scanlan and Mr. Devlin.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Reddy, Michael

  NOES.

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

  Fisher, W. Hayes

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Frewen, Moreton

  Quilter, W. E. C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Spear, John Ward

  Bird, Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stealer, Beville

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Swift, Rigby

  Carillo, Edward Hildred

  Locker-Lampoon, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Croft, Henry Page

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Newman, John R. P.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Fell, Arthur

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Craig and Mr. Moore.

  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Postponed Proceeding on Question proposed on Consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £79,738, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of
  1486
  payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."
  Which Question was, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Mr. MOUNT: I was endeavouring to point out when I was interrupted by

  1487
  private business, that in the composition of this Committee set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the agricultural interest is not properly represented. There is a considerable grievance on the part of the agricultural interest with regard to the burden of local taxation. While the rateable value of agricultural land has gone down in the period for which this Committee is to make inquiries, the rateable value of other hereditaments has gone up. In addition, the burdens placed upon agricultural land have increased even in greater proportion than those which fall upon the towns. I should like to give the instance of the parish with which I am most intimately connected and where I hold a position which is not held by many other Members of the House, namely that of rate collector. In Michaelmas, 1900, the contribution orders which came from the board of guardians and the union amounted to £63 2s. 6d., and Michaelmas last year that sum had gone up to £128 5s. 6d. So that when double the amount is, asked from the rural ratepayer with at the same time a decrease in the rateable value, I do not think that anyone can deny that the grievance of the agriculturist with regard to this question of local taxation is as strong and as vital as that of any other section of the community. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed representatives of different interests on this Committee I think we should get adequate representation upon it.
  I do not think that anyone who has looked through the names of the Committee can say that the representation of the agricultural interest is adequate or sufficient. Putting aside for the moment the question of the official element upon that Committee you have got one member of a county council in England, one member of a town council in England, one member of a county council in Scotland and one of a town council, and one member, and I daresay the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that this is sufficient to redress the balance in favour of the agriculturist, for the county council in Wales. I do not want to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of withholding from us the substance while giving us the shadow, but if we look at the county council in Wales from which he-has appointed a representative, namely, Glamorganshire, I think it is not unfair to say that that county more represents a borough than a county. The rateable value of the county
  1488
  of Glamorgan, keeping outside of county boroughs, is a little over two and a quarter millions, and the rateable value of the agricultural land in the county of Glamorgan is only £127,000. I cannot think that the representative of a county which contains such a small amount of agricultural land as does Glamorgan, can be said to be in any way an adequate representative of the agricultural interest on this Committee. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were really' anxious, as I suppose he was, to get a report which would be received with confidence by the agricultural interests, who are so deeply interested in the question, I cannot think that he can really believe that the report of a Committee constituted as this is, would be received with confidence by the agricultural community. We have had no indication whatever, so far as I have been able to gather from the Government that in this Committee they propose in any way to take evidence with regard to this question of local taxation.
  If you are going to have this Committee appointed, consisting of men who cannot be said to represent in any way the confidence of the agricultural community, I do not think you can expect that the report of a Committee such as that will be received in any way with satisfaction by the industry of agriculture. I suppose that legislation is to be formed upon the Committee's report, and that such legislation is to last for some time. Therefore, it is most important that the Committee should report in a fair and reasonable manner, and that the report should be received with the confidence of all parties interested. I cannot think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government have set about the composition of this Committee in the right way. I do not know whether it is too late to ask that additional Members may be placed on the Committee. I certainly hope it is not, but if the Chancellor says it is already decided I hope that at any rate he wilt see that evidence is asked for and taken by this Committee before it gives its report. I hope also that some publication will be made of the evidence which is submitted to it, so that even if the influence of Mr. Harper may be used to urge a system of taxation of site values of land that at any rate the public and the agricultural interest may be enabled to judge as to how far the report of that Committee is justified by the evidence put before it. It depends a great deal on the composition of the Committee and the evidence given

  1489
  before it how far the report of the Committee will be received with confidence or satisfaction by the agricultural interest.
  Mr. ARTHUR ALLEN: With a good deal of the speech of the Mover of the Amendment I am in full agreement, as, indeed, every representative of London must be. All of us in London, to whatever party we belong, have a grievance, not merely against this Government, but against every Government for many years past. On that point at any rate the different parties on the London County Council have easily arrived at unanimity in their endeavour to get fresh money from London out of the Imperial Exchequer. But that is not the ground upon which, as I understand, the hon. Member has moved the reduction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's salary. He has moved it because he is not satisfied with the representation which London has on the Departmental Committee. I should not like this Committee or the public outside to think that there is any unanimity in that dissatisfaction. It is perfectly true that all of us on the London County Council have the highest opinion of Mr. Haward's talents.
  It is perfectly true that Mr. Haward owes his high position to appointment by the Progressive party. But only the other day we all thought that Mr. Harper had the confidence of and was uniformly looked up to and respected by all parties on the London County Council. The hon. Member spoke as though Mr. Harper would be in the pocket of the Government, but, from what he said as to previous transactions, he gave me rather to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in the pocket of Mr. Harper. One of the great complaints of the hon. Member against the appointment was that Mr. Harper was going on to the Committee as a present or prospective employé of the Government. That is entirely an ex post facto objection. It did not exist, and could not have existed when Mr. Harper's services were asked for. At that time he was a valued servant of the county council. The fact that he is no longer a servant of the county council is due, as I believe, not to any overtures from the Government, but simply and solely to the gross affront which was put upon him when it was said that the interests of London would be gravely jeopardised if anybody but Mr. Haward sat on this Committee.
  What is Mr. Harper's position? He has been for twenty-three years in the employ-
  1490
  ment of the county council and its predecessors. He was for many years assistant valuer to the county council, and he has been its statistical officer. The hon. Member spoke of him as a subordinate officer. Mr. Harper has been in no sense at any time subordinate to Mr. Haward. He has been for many years one of the council's principal officers. As statistical officer he has been responsible for presiding over and conducting the quinquennial valuations of London. He undoubtedly knows more than any other man in London about the different questions connected with rating in the Metropolis, I should like the Committee to understand that the hon. Member for Fulham is voicing not the unanimous opinion of the county council, but only the opinion of a small majority of that council, when he says that Mr. Harper will inadequately represent the interests of London upon the Departmental Committee. Those of us who have known Mr. Harper far longer than the hon. Member for Fulham has done—for he is a comparatively young member of the county council—have the utmost confidence that by Mr. Harper London's interests will be well looked after.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I have listened with great interest, but not altogether with feelings of conviction, to the interesting speech just delivered. One observation of the hon. Member which had my entire sympathy was that the ratepayers, not merely of London, but especially of agricultural areas, have had a grievance against not only this Government but Governments of every complexion for some considerable time past. I am not going to suggest that the worst offender, at all events until recently, in these iniquities against the agricultural ratepayers, was not the Government which introduced the Education Act of 1902. I am not going to attempt to burke that difficulty, which I always feel faces a Unionist Member when he seeks to indict the Government on the subject of the ratepayers' burdens. That unfortunate example, however, has been more than imitated by the present Government. I am entirely in accord with those who say that they have a grievance against all Governments with regard to the imposition of these admittedly national burdens upon the already overburdened shoulders of the ratepayer.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I was about to approach the important subject of the composition of the Departmental Committee. With regard to Mr. Harper, whose appointment does not interest me so much as the lack of appointment of rural representatives to counterbalance his influence, I will only say to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur Allen) that when he says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in the pocket of Mr. Harper rather than Mr. Harper in the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend did not make that statement. He said that, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Fulham, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in Mr. Harper's pocket, and not Mr. Harper in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: And the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I noticed, nodded assent.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I nodded assent that that was the meaning of the hon. Member for Fulham's speech.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I assume from his interruption that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not agree with that sentiment. I sincerely hope he does not, because, considering that this is a Departmental Committee of the Treasury, it would be a most anomalous position that any member of the Committee should have the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pocket. In any case, if this gentleman has given up a high salaried position in order to accept a seat upon the Departmental Committee, I think it puts him in an extremely anomalous position, and that such a position is calculated to shake the impartiality even of a Solon. With regard to the aspect of the question upon which I feel most strongly, if the London representatives of this House have a grievance as regards the composition of the Committee, the agricultural representatives have a still more serious grievance. Upon this Committee there are, all told, thirteen members. With only two exceptions, they are all representatives of Government Departments or of urban areas. The representatives of Government Departments presumably live in London, or at any rate carry on their administrative work in urban surroundings; so that they would have more knowledge of urban than of rural conditions. Who are the two gentlemen supposed to represent rural areas? One is a
  1492
  member of a Scottish county council. The system of rating in Scotland is absolutely different from the system of rating in England. It is on an entirely different basis, and the rates come from other pockets than those of the occupiers of the hereditaments. Therefore that Member, at any rate if he is to be regarded as a representative, cannot be expected to watch the interests of agricultural ratepayers in English rural districts.
  The sole representative of English rural areas is Mr. F. E. N. Rogers, a Wiltshire county councillor. I am bound to say he is a gentleman who thoroughly sympathises with, and who is thoroughly cognisant of the interests of agriculture. I make the Chancellor of the Exchequer a present of that concession. I have some knowledge of Mr. Rogers, because he came out against me at the last General Election as an agriculturist, and as an agriculturist he was beaten. However that may be, Mr. Rogers, I admit, is fully qualified, so far as lies in his power as one man, to represent the interests of the English rural areas, but as against not Only a majority, but a very large majority of representatives not merely of Government Departments, but particularly urban areas, Mr. Rogers cannot be expected to have an effective voice in the deliberations of this Departmental Committee. There are only two possible alternatives that can be adopted if the report that is eventually issued by this Committee is to have the full confidence of those whom it mostly affects. One is a judicial investigation by absolutely impartial persons; the other is that the Committee itself shall be representative of all the interests affected.
  I do not suppose that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit that on the question of rating Mr. Harper can be considered as altogether an impartial authority. Mr. Harper was the chief witness before the Royal Commission which made its report in 1901, that advocated the rating of site values. Upon the strength of Mr. Harper's evidence more than that of anyone else the separate report of that Royal Commission was founded, to which so many references have been made during the last few months in this House. I should like to emphasise what has been said just now by an hon. Member, that there is not going to be any public confidence, particularly in the rural areas, in the report that eventually emanates from this Committee, unless this Committee fulfils one or other of the necessary qualifications I have mentioned. Either it must be

  1493
  a body of absolutely and admittedly impartial persons, or representative of all the interests affected. If it is not representative of all the interests affected, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to admit that it is not, I would ask him, as a matter of common fairness, that he shall not leave it to the Committee, but that he shall himself insist, that evidence is brought before that Committee, hailing particularly from the agricultural districts and from the rural county councils, in order to bring their case adequately before its notice. There is one particular point in which the urban question is absolutely distinct from the rural question. I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question the other day on the subject of the composition of this Committee. The answer I got was "That urban and rural problems as regards rating are the same."
  I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to support that statement, but I would remind him that when a portion of the Royal Commission upon Local Taxation made a separate report it particularly emphasised the fact that as regards rates based upon site value it was an urban solution of the problem, and that it could not under any circumstances be regarded as one that would meet the difficulties of rating in rural districts. There is a very good reason for that, because in urban centres there is an economic rent obtained from every hereditament, and in many instances I am sorry to say something far in excess of the economic rent, but in rural areas the majority of hereditaments do not produce anything like an economic rent, and therefore it is absolutely impossible with any justice to put a rate or tax upon the site value of such hereditaments.
  10 P.M.
  What I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer particularly to say is that, if this Committee is not going to be altered in its complexion the certain bodies whose position is well recognised as being entitled to speak on such a matter as this shall have the opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee. I should like to mention amongst those bodies first of all the Central Land Association, with the work of which the Chancellor is fully cognisant, which is well represented on both sides of the House, and which endeavours to carry on its work quite apart altogether from party politics. In addition to that there is the Surveyors' Institution, whose members are cognisant of the difficulty of rating problems both in London and the
  1494
  rural districts. Then there is the Farmers' Club—and perhaps I may be allowed to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the very admirable and carefully considered paper read to them last week by their secretary on this very subject of "A Revision of the Methods of Rating as affecting Rural Districts," a report of which appeared in most of the London Press. If the Chancellor will allow me to do so, I can supply him personally with a verbatim report of the paper and the discussion which arose upon it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the hon. Member can give me a sufficient number of copies, I will undertake to circulate them amongst the members of the Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that offer. I will only be too glad to comply. Lastly, I would ask him to allow the Land Agents' Society to send representatives to give evidence before this Committee. I doubt whether any body of men can give better evidence as regards these problems, as they affect the great agricultural estates throughout the country. I do not think I am asking very much when I put forward these suggestions, and I am quite sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accede to them it will create a much greater amount of confidence in the public mind in the rural areas than is being felt at the present time owing to the composition of this Committee. May I ask the Chancellor one rather pointed question. He was good enough, in reply to a question which I put to him to-day, to tell me exactly what were the terms of reference to the Committee. If the Committee will allow me to read what the Chancellor said it will make my point plain. The terms of reference are as follows:—
  "To inquire into changes which have taken place in the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation since the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in 1901, to examine the several proposals made in the Reports of that Commission, and to make recommendations on the subject for the consideration of His Majesty's Government with a view to the undertaking of legislation at an early date."
  What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is: Do these terms of reference include, and are they intended to include, any of the suggestions which are now

  1495
  being made in regard to rating, possibly of site values in rural areas, which were not contained in and were no part of the proposals of either the majority of the Royal Commission, or those who signed the separate report? Because if this be read literally it is quite impossible for this Departmental Committee to enter at all into the question of whether site values in rural areas shall be subjected to rating.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I certainly have nothing to complain of as to the tone of the discussion which we have had upon this question. In many respects I think it has been a very interesting Debate, and I am very glad the hon. Member for Fulham has raised it. I may be permitted first of all to deal with the suggestion made by the last speaker and his predecessors dealing rather with the rural and agricultural problems. I think the hon. Member who first raised the agricultural side of the problem overlooked the fact that, as I am told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, about 75 per cent. of the population is urban and only 25 per cent. rural. I have not got the figures by me, but I am told the proportion in Scotland is not even that. In Ireland the population is mostly agricultural.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I should like to know whether the word "urban" is used in the technical sense as indicating borough as opposed to county, or whether the figures are on the basis of what is called urban population and agricultural areas?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I take the figures of the Local Government Board, and I am speaking of town as against rural populations. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the population of this country is urban, and I think, on the whole, that is a matter to be regretted. There is no doubt at all about it that it would be far more desirable in regard to the general good of the nation if we had a far larger population in the rural districts. Take Glamorgan, referred to by an hon. Gentleman opposite, which is the nursery of the labouring population there in the rural districts, and I do not know what would happen, not merely to the rural districts of Wales, but the whole of the West of England, had it not been for the fact that hundreds and thousands of very strong and powerful men are brought up in much more peaceful and healthy conditions in the rural districts.
  1496
  It is a very serious matter that the rural areas are depopulated, and that people are crowded together under very unhealthy conditions in urban areas. At any rate, the fact remains the vast majority of the people are in the urban areas, and also—I have not got the figures—the overwhelming burdens of rateable value are on the urban districts, and therefore on the rates. I should like to point out we have four representatives of the urban areas and three representatives of the rural areas upon our Committee, and I do not think, having regard to the proportions of population, and certainly to the proportions of rateable value and rates paid, that is at all an unfair division. One hon. Member made the point that officials live for the most part in towns, but if he takes an official like Sir John Struthers—who is an exceedingly able man, one of the ablest I ever had the opportunity of meeting—he will find he was bred and born in the rural areas, and knows all about rural areas, and I should not think any man better disposed to the rural areas could be found than he. If the hon. Member will consult his colleague the Member for the Glasgow University he will agree with me in my guess as to his predispositions in that respect.
  The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asked me whether I would give a pledge that the Commit tee will receive evidence from the Central Lands Association, from the Surveyors' Institute, and the Farmers Club. Of course, that might bind the Committee. I am not in a position to give instructions and directions to the Committee. You cannot do that. If so it would really cease to be an impartial tribunal. If any recommendations of mine would carry any weight with the Committee, I now publicly state I quite agree with the hon. Member that it would he a very useful thing to receive evidence from such important bodies and bodies who speak with authority on behalf of the rural areas, both from the landlords and tenants in these districts. But that is all I can do. If I began interfering by giving directions they would be perfectly right to resent such interference. He then asked me to give an interpretation as to what would be included in the scope of the inquiry. That is a matter entirely for the chairman. I agree the reference is very wide, but it is not for me to interpret it; it is entirely for the chairman, with the assistance of his colleagues, and therefore I prefer not expressing any opinion. That disposes of the questions raised by the hon.

  1497
  Gentleman on that subject, and if there is any point I have overlooked I should be glad to answer it if they remind me of it.
  I come to the matter which, after all, is the reason wily this Debate has been raised, and that is the appointment of Mr. Harper. That is really the subject of the most interest, and it was the only controversial topic. Let me say at once the reason for it was this. I was under the impression that we should be free this year to deal with this problem, because there is nothing that fell from any of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke on that point with which I do not agree as to the urgency of dealing with it. I agree with the hon. Member for Fulham in every particular, and in all he said as to the urgency of the problem, and also with what fell from the hon. Member for South Wiltshire and the hon. Member for Newbury. I agree to the full. It is not merely an urgent problem for the rural areas and the urban areas; it is an urgent problem for the Exchequer—a very urgent problem—and no man who has been at the Exchequer can possibly fail to realise the real gravity of the problem.
  Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor of the Exchequer realises the fact that the rates are pressing very heavily; Acts of Parliament are passed, as the hon. Gentleman very fairly reminded the House, not merely by one Government, but by the Governments of all parties imposing fresh obligations upon the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Fulham rather overlooked that. He referred to the case of administration by the present Government, but the hon. Member for Wilts very fairly supplemented that by saying that the very worst offenders were the parties that passed the Education Act of 1902. I am not now trying to prove whether Unionists are more to blame than we are. I am not going to make any party point. Government after Government pass fresh Acts of Parliament imposing fresh obligations upon the urban and rural ratepayers. There is no doubt about that; that is one of the fundamentals of the problem. Chancellors of Exchequer are always faced with the demands very difficult to resist for Grants-in-Aid. In my judgment that is the very worst way of dealing with the problem. The doling out of a million now and half-a-million again is the most extravagant and unbusinesslike way of dealing with one of the most complicated financial problems anyone could be face to face with, and it completely dislocates the
  1498
  finances of the Treasury. The demand comes not merely from one side. The pressure comes from behind as well as from the Opposition. It may seem an easy way of dealing with a problem to dole out a million here and there, forgetting that the money does not drop like the gentle rain from Heaven. You have to get the money from somewhere, and you must tax somebody in order to get it; and then Chancellors of the Exchequer get into trouble by having to put on extra taxation. That is really the trouble, and it is urgent from the point of view of the Exchequer, as well as from the point of view of the urban and rural authorities. No Chancellor of the Exchequer ever gets any credit for these doles. I am certain Lord St. Aldwyn never got any credit for the millions he doled out while he was in office, or at any rate not the credit he deserved. This year I shall be responsible for £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 for these purposes. Listening to this Debate, no one would have imagined that a single sixpence had been voted for the benefit of local authorities. There is a general sense of dissatisfaction, and people are saying, what is the good of a million-and-a-half to settle this problem? That is perfectly right. We have got to settle the problem.
  I really thought this year I should be in a position to do it, but it is no fault of mine that I am not. I am not going to locate the blame. We are face to face with a great constitutional crisis which, absorbs the whole attention of the public, and this is a question which will take up the whole time of a single Session because it is one of enormous magnitude, whatever the remedy. Therefore, I thought the best plan was not to appoint a Commission or a Committee. We have had Committees and Commissions galore, all taking evidence, all reporting, all making suggestions, and nothing is ever done. I therefore thought it was no use going through the farce of appointing more Commissions to take evidence and get conclusions which are not acted upon, but I thought the time had come for the Government to act upon its own responsibility. I then decided to summon together, quite informally, a number of experts, rather to advise the Government or to give their opinion to the Government as to the best way of dealing with the problem. Several of those gentlemen I had already seen upon the subject, and amongst others was Mr. Harper. He is not the only one I have seen, because

  1499
  there were two or three others. That occurred before there was any question of Mr. Haward.
  I have not a word to say against Mr. Haward, and there is not a statement made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) about Mr. Haward's ability and skill that I wish to cast the slightest doubt upon. Nobody would have been better pleased to have had Mr. Haward's advice than I should be, and I shall be very glad to get it again. I am very sorry both in the interests of Mr. Haward and Mr. Harper that this question has arisen. Before there was any question of Mr. If award I had consulted Mr. Harper. I really did not know about Mr. Haward, but I had come in contact with Mr. Harper purely upon questions of taxation. I do not know now Mr. Harper's politics, and I never discussed a word of politics with him; in fact, I never discussed anything with him but questions of local taxation.
  Mr. Harper is one of the greatest authorities in this country upon certain aspects of local taxation, and, after all, on a Committee of this sort, it is right that that aspect should be represented. If I had not appointed a gentleman for the reasons suggested, I agree that the hon. Gentleman might have complained that I had packed the Committee with men who took strong views about land values and other things. All I say is that I do not know that there is another Gentleman on this Committee who agrees with Mr. Harper upon any of these subjects, and I do not think it is too much to ask that at least one out of thirteen should be a man holding those views on a Committee of this character. I had already seen Mr. Harper. I told him that when the Committee was summoned I should ask him to act. He said he would consult his council on the subject. I had not sent the formal invitation but I had already asked him, and that is the reason why he is asked at the present moment. Why did I ask him? I asked him because I understood he was the gentleman who was more particularly associated with the question of local taxation on the county council. That was the information which I had. Then I consulted the London County Council as to his appointment. Let me again confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Arthur Allen). The hon. Member, who is a member of the county council, made it perfectly clear that Mr. Haward was in no sense the superior
  1500
  officer of Mr. Harper. If Mr. Haward had been his superior officer, and I had passed over the superior officer and taken the next, that would have been a snub for Mr. Haward. I did nothing of the kind. Mr. Haward is in a totally different Department. He is at the head of that Department, an enormously important Department. He is in a position roughly corresponding to that of the city treasurer of Glasgow. I cannot imagine a more important position, but it is a totally separate Department. Mr. Harper is statistical officer and at the head of another Department. What are his functions? These are the only functions that concern me:—
  "To prepare Returns and to investigate all matters relating to local taxation and local rating.
  "To prepare the list of the annual rateable value of the county.
  "To assess the county rate.
  "To advise on the assessments for rating of property belonging to the council.
  "To examine the valuation lists.
  "To value Government property."
  and many other things. Those are his functions. I find from a minute to the council he has experience in connection with local government and taxation. He was appointed in the year 1901. He is not a man chosen by the Progressives. He is an old officer of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The county council took him over from the Board of Works. He was then in a very good position, although quite a young man. Since then he has, through his experience and ability, which is acknowledged very frankly and truly by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) been promoted to the head of the Department which advises the council on questions of local rating and taxation. That was exactly what I wanted, and I went to the county council. I thought I was getting a man who by virtue of his office was experienced in local taxation and rating, and that was exactly the man I wanted for my Committee. Let me point out another thing in connection with Mr. Harper. I was very glad to see the other day his services were fully recognised. He resigned, I think, some time in May, and this is the minute signed by Mr. H. J. Greenwood, who I believe is a very distinguished Moderate member of that council, on behalf of the General Purposes Committee, accepting Mr. Harper's resignation:—
  "Mr. Harper entered the service of the council's predecessors (the Metropolitan Board of Works) in 1878 as the result of competitive examination, and after a period of service in the Estates and Valuation Department he was, whilst holding the position of assistant valuer, appointed on the 29th January. 1901, to be statistical officer as head of the Local Government and Statistical Department. Throughout the whole of his

  1501
  long and varied official career Mr. Harper has rendered conspicuous service, and we feel sure that the Council will learn with regret that it is about to lose the advantage of his great ability and peculiar knowledge specially in connection with questions of local taxation."
  Anyone hearing the criticisms of our appointment of Mr. Harper might have imagined we had perpetrated a gross job; that we had got hold of somebody who knew nothing about local taxation or about the needs of London, and could not possibly represent those needs to us. Yet here is a resolution passed by our own critics saying he is a man of distinguished ability, who has special knowledge of the very question that we want him to deal with. For which of these things are we stoned? Is it for choosing a man who is an expert, and who hon. Members admit to be an expert on this very question, or is it for not choosing a man to represent the views of the council? The hon. Member says, "Will you allow the Farmers' Alliance to give evidence on this question?"
  Will you allow the Central Land Committee to give evidence? Surely if there are special views to be represented it is best they should be represented by means of evidence. But this is not a Committee where you have thirteen men each representing special views. I may tell the hon. Member I have no information as to what the views of these Gentlemen are on any subject, except that I read Mr. Harper's views before the Royal Commission. I know they are very able men; they are all men who have had great experience in local government. If it is suggested that anybody is there to represent views I should say at once that it is not a question of representing any particular area. Mr. Beard is a singularly able man. I know nothing about his politics or his views. But suppose he said "I am here to represent the town council of Blackburn." He has no more right to claim to represent on the Committee the town council of Blackburn than Mr. Harper has a right to represent the London County Council. Mr. Murison may say "I am here to represent the interests of Aberdeen," or Mr. Hughes, of the Glamorgan County Council, may say, "I am not here to give independent advice: I want to see that the interests of the Rhondda Valley are looked after." What sort of a Committee would that be for anybody to sit on, and what value does the hon. Member think not this Government, but any Government, would attach to their opinion? What I want is for the men to come there frankly and freely to discuss the matter, and give perfectly in-
  1502
  dependent advice as to what is the best thing to do. I have read some of the reports to tho council on local taxation by Mr. Harper, criticising the Government and criticising my proposals, and I do not think that Mr. Harper showed the slightest lack of independence in that respect. Take the last two reports that he sent in to the council, signed by himself. He criticised just as, strongly as the hon. Gentleman did some of the proposals of the Government in reference to London local taxation, and if I were seeking a partisan I should never have chosen Mr. Harper. He can come there and criticise any of our proposals, just as anybody else can do. He is a man of singular independence, and a singularly honourable and straightforward man. Why should the council have administered this snub? He has been a faithful servant of theirs. They deemed it a point of honour to defend Mr. Haward. Did they not think they were under some obligation to a man who served them longer than Mr. Haward. They virtually passed a vote of censure upon him by saying that the interests of London would not be safe in his charge. That is a very severe thing to pass. Did they ever see him? Nobody ever saw him, nobody ever spoke to him, and the first he heard of it was the resolution of the council saying that he was not a fit person to represent it on the committee. That was in regard to a man who had served them for thirty years.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The first we heard of it was a letter which conveyed an intimation that we were only to have one representative on the Committee, and we thought Mr. Haward, the comptroller, ought to be that member. That was the-letter, and as to Mr. Harper we suggested that he should be allowed to give evidence. That did not look as if we were disparaging the qualities of Mr. Harper. We merely thought that if we had the choice of one he ought to be the comptroller and not Mr. Harper.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member does not remember his own Resolution. The Resolution said somewhere that they did not consider that the interests of London would be safeguarded unless they had Mr. Haward upon the Committee.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the letter. The letter suggests that Mr. Harper should be allowed to give evidence.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will accept the statement of the hon. Member. I will not, therefore, read the letter. Mr. Harper was to give evidence and Mr. Haward was to be asked to sit on the Committee. Why should not Mr. Harper be on the Committee and Mr. Haward give evidence? Besides that, the hon. Member has been in a Government, and does he mean to say that a Committee is appointed by a Government upon the incidence of local taxation, and local authorities are to choose their representatives. He talks about this action being unprecedented, but can he give me a single precedent for the demand which the London County Council put forward? There have been Commissions upon all sorts of questions dealing with local taxation and local government, and has any council ever said, "We want to have our own representative upon that body"? It is plain that not only in regard to this Government, but in regard to every Government that ever sat on this Bench, such a thing has never been heard of before. The first the London County Council did in this case, without sending for Mr. Harper, without informing him that a resolution of this kind was to be passed, was to pass it in his absence, and without communicating with him they published it in the Press. Mr. Harper is a very independent man, and he is a man of sufficient self-respect, and he would not tolerate the public snub administered to him. He never asked for anything; he was never promised anything. He offered unconditionally to give up his position on the council and place his services at the disposal of the Government, and he has done so. If he is not still the officer of the London County Council whose fault is it? He would have been still their officer for the purpose of local taxation had it not been for the action of the hon. Member who, it seems to me, for purely party purposes, inflicted a purely undeserved snub upon a most deserving and most able and upright public officer, who throughout his life had served them faithfully, criticising Governments, Liberal and Conservative, whenever he thought they were doing an injustice to the London ratepayer. There is no abler man we could have had for the purpose. I do not say a word about Mr. Haward. I am not going to enter into a very unpleasant controversy which was not initiated by me, a controversy as to which of two thoroughly honourable, able, experienced men is the abler. I did not choose Mr. Harper because I thought he
  1504
  was abler than Mr. Haward. I chose him because from every single document in the possession of the Government he was the man who represented the views of the council on questions of local taxation. One of the things that this Committee is to inquire into is the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. Who gave evidence for the council then? The man who presented the views of the council on that occasion was not Mr. Haward, but Mr. Harper. He was good enough to fight the battle of the council then. He was good enough to write reports on local taxation. The moment it came to be a question of serving on a Government Committee, he was to be publicly insulted and publicly humiliated, and I think if the Government had allowed that to a man of his position they would deserve every censure that any honourable fair-minded man would administer.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I desire to express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech, the greater part of which was couched in terms to which the most bitter of his opponents could not take the smallest exception, a speech admirably suited to the subject which he was discussing, at the end of his speech levelled against my hon. Friend (Mr. Hayes Fisher) and those whom he represents, a charge which was as odious as it was without foundation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he charges my hon. Friend, who happens to be the leader of the majority of the county council, of party action, is making a charge which I am surprised he should make, and I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen should cheer it. After all, what is the charge which hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. It is that my hon. Friend in his capacity as leader of the majority in the county council recommended for a particular appointment, the chief finance officer of the council. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, opinions differ on that point, but I prefer to take the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend himself.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is not the case that we refused the recommendation. We had already asked the Council to offer us the services of Mr. Harper. They said, "We will not give you Mr. Harper, but we will give you Mr. Haward."
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I will come to that; but I entirely challenge the statement. I am dealing first of all with the charge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that my hon. Friend was

  1505
  actuated in the action he took in the previous negotiations by party feeling. That is erroneous, and, apart from that, it is ridiculous. As President of the Local Government Board, I happened to be from its earliest commencement associated with the London County Council, and I happened to meet Mr. Haward when he first became an officer of the council. To suggest that my hon. Friend is carried away by party feeling in recommending Mr. Haward for the office is to make a charge so ridiculous that I am surprised the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not wanting in acumen, should have made it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it is not the case that the council recommended Mr. Haward. He says that he asked for Mr. Harper and that the council refused Mr. Harper, and offered Mr. Haward. That is exactly the reverse of what took place. We have had one debate to-day in which it appeared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury took different views of a particular incident. Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer ignoring the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury, acting on behalf of the Government and in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, caine to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and asked him as chairman of the majority of the council to recommend somebody to him to serve on the Committee. The name of Mr. Haward was mentioned, and that name was accepted by the Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Government at the time, and for some time—I do not know how long—my hon. Friend was under the impression that the suggestion he had made was acceptable to the Government and would be adopted.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend. The Secretary to the Treasury wrote a letter to me and suggested Mr. Haward before I had been in communication with him on the subject, and before I ever thought the Government were going to propose him.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: I am very glad my hon. Friend interrupted me, because what he has stated makes the case all the stronger. The actual suggestion, in the first instance, came from the Secretary to the Treasury. For some time my hon. Friend was under the impression that they were agreed upon this. The Government changed their mind and determined not to have Mr. Haward as the representative of the council—not to have
  1506
  the man whom the leader of the majority recommended in the name of the council. After all, it is the business of the majority to make recommendations of that kind. It is by virtue of a majority that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is where he is now, and he does that in virtue of the position which he occupies, because he has behind him a majority, which he declines to allow my hon. Friend as representative of the London County Council to do, and to do, not on his own motion, but on the invitation and suggestion of the Secretary to the Treasury himself.
  The whole answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point falls to the ground. The recommendation did not come, in the first instance, from my hon. Friend. It came from the Treasury, and was adopted by the county council, and it is not Mr. Harper who has been insulted by the county council. It is not Mr. Harper who has been put on one side as unfit to represent the London County Council. It is Mr. Haward who has been recommended by the Government and adopted by the London County Council, and who for some time was considered the adopted representative for this purpose—he is the distinguished official who has been insulted if anybody has been insulted, and it is the Government who have offered him the insult, and not the London County Council. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went into a long story about Mr. Harper's services and his distinguished ability, and he suggested that some of the criticisms that had been passed upon the Government indicate that the view is held that Mr. Harper is in no way qualified for the position he holds on the Committee. All I can say is I have heard nothing said in this Debate tending in that direction. I have read a great many statements in various newspapers. I have not noticed a single word either in speech or newspaper article which has conveyed any other view than this—that Mr. Harper's abilities are as high as his personal character. Against him personally there is not one word to be said. On the contrary, he is a man, both by ability and personal character, as well as by experience and previous services who is eminently qualified to represent the London County Council upon this or any other Committee. But he is not the chief officer of the council. He is not the officer whom the leader of the majority on the council, acting upon the suggestion of a Member of the Government recommended

  1507
  to be employed. What puzzles us more than anything else in this case is the action of the Government. We are not always claiming to be representatives of the people or to be true democrats, but we are in this case the democrats and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a tyrannical autocrat. My hon. Friend is the representative of the majority on a popularly elected body which represents the whole of London. [An HON. MEMBER: "A majority of one."] In that capacity he recommended a man whom he believed the right person to represent the central local body in London. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says: "You democrats are all very well. We do not want a man chosen by the elected representatives of the people of London. You must take my man. I am not going to take the senior chief minister of the council. I am going to put your suggestion on one side." That is a high-handed proceeding, and while I do not regret for a moment that Mr. Harper should have been selected, on personal grounds I do regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not deem it right to adopt the views of the county council, which views were not their own alone, but were also the views of his own representative. But I was very much astonished at the suggestion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this: My hon. Friend put it to him that when they found they were only to have one representative they suggested Mr. Haward for the Committee and Mr. Harper to give evidence, and the Chancellor turns upon my hon. Friend and says, "Why not Mr. Harper on the Committee and Mr. Haward to give evidence?" If the Chancellor refers to precedents he will find very few where he is dealing with great governing bodies responsible for great matters, such as the London County Council, in the case of which it has ever been suggested that the junior official should go on the inquiry and the senior official should give evidence. I venture to say that the Chancellor can find no precedent for that suggestion, and it is one that I heard with the utmost astonishment.
  Having regard to the large issues raised by the appointment of the Committee, I beg to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is entirely mistaken if he thinks that this Debate to-night would never have arisen if it had not been for the appointment of Mr. Harper. There has been general dissatisfaction expressed in
  1508
  many quarters at the appointment of this Committee. If that dissatisfaction had not been justified before it has been justified by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said about the appointment of Mr. Harper to-night. What did he tell us? He told us Mr. Harper is not, as we understood in the first instance, appointed as being able to put the case of London better than anybody else, but because he holds particular views with regard to local taxation which the right hon. Gentleman told us he considered ought to be represented on this Committee. I am not going to dispute that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly entitled that certain views of an extreme kind ought to be represented on the Committee; but if that is the method of composing the Committee all the Members of it should have been selected for similar reasons. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us he wanted was that the Committee should be able to go into the question impartially and to be able to make a report on that basis to the Government. He told us that Mr. Harper went on to the Committee representing nobody and nothing but himself and his own particular opinions; he is not there as the representative of a town council or a county council. But the right hon. Gentleman said what my hon. Friend meant was that a town clerk was entitled to claim that he only represented Bradford, or that the county council clerk only represented his county. That is a ridiculous suggestion to make. What my hon. Friend said was that the Government, in making their selections from town councils, county councils, and great city councils, had selected experts from those bodies. But in the case of the counties what has been done? They have put on this Committee experts on behalf of the Government—more, I submit, than are necessary. They have put on trained experts representing the great towns. When they go to the county councils they have chosen two gentlemen, against whom not a single word is to be said; they are admirable in every respect, but to compare them with the experts is absurd.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are three.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: You have two, and the other one, no doubt, is a gentleman of the highest attainments. But to talk of any ordinary county councillor as being an expert alongside the trained officials, whether taken from town or county, or anywhere else, is absurd. If the

  1509
  object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get a report from the best expert opinion, then I submit that by his own admission he has not gone the right way to work to attain that object. The case of London has already been referred to, and I have not time now to deal with it. I do not ask for information now, as it is impossible to get it, but as to the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, not on his own authority, but on that of the President of the Local Government Board, I do not see what bearing it has on the case. The statement was that 75 per cent. of the population is urban in character. The President of the Local Government Board knows very well that the use of the words urban and rural is very misleading unless we know, by full description, exactly what is meant. The difference between urban and rural rating cases is very great. It is perfectly true that in the urban case, such as in the great towns, which, I think, is a better description than the urban population, the rate is, of course, higher. You will find a rate, no doubt, of eight or nine or ten shillings in many of the great towns, whereas, in the rural districts, the rate is, perhaps, four or five or six or seven shillings. Yes, but there is all the difference in the world of what is meant by these two sums, and what the ratepayer in the towns gets in respect of the greater part of the rate he has to pay. Whether he be a rich man or a poor man, he gets in respect of the greater part of the expenditure a direct return for the money which he pays. In the case of the ratepayer he gets, in many cases, no return at all, and the benefit is very remote if it ever reaches him. Therefore the problem in his case is not only a greater one, but the difficulties surrounding it do not surround the urban case.
  Thus you want for the rural case special representation. I do not deny that it is difficult, on the numbers chosen by the
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he has as many official representatives as he asked for, to give rural representations. I have not time to go further into this. I have only indicated one of the reasons why the rural case has been separated altogether from the urban case so far as the urban case is concerned. I have only to say in conclusion I am fully conversant with the history of the events which have led to the appointment of this Committee. We have heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. If time permitted, it would be very easy effectively to reply to the excuse he gave. This Committee was appointed very much on the suggestion of two or three hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House and one on the other who took part in the previous Debate. When we suggested that the Government might have a Committee to inquire into some of these difficulties we certainly did not have in mind any Committee such as the right hon. Gentleman has appointed. I am very sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to give fuller representation to the interests concerned, because I can assure him it would be very difficult for those who have been dealing with the question from many standpoints and who know its complexities, and who realise to some extent how great it is to look with any confidence or satisfaction to the results of the inquiry of the Committee which has been appointed as this one has been appointed, and which, in our opinion—our deliberate opinion—cannot be held to represent fully and adequately the various interests concerned—those interests whose future must be materially affected if action follows on the suggestion of the Committee.
  Question put, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages and Allowances) be reduced by £100."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 173.

  Division No. 239.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cator, John

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Astor, Waldorf

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Grant, James Augustus

  Baird, J. L.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Gretton, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Dixon, C. H

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Bigland, Alfred

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Hills, John Waller

  Bridgeman W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hohler, G. F.

  Campion, W. R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Moore, William

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Newman, John R. P.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Lansdale, John Brownlee

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Edgbaston)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Spear, John Ward

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Stanier, Beville

  Macmaster, Donald

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Steel-Maitland, A D.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Furness, Stephen

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Adamson, William

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Glanville, Harold James

  O'Dowd, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Atherley-Jones, Liewellyn A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones (Anglesey)

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

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

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hackett, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Beale, William Phipson

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hayward, Evan

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Burt, Rt. Han. Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hudson, Walter

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rowlands, James

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Joyce, Michael (Limerick)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clynes, John R.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Kelly, Edward

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Shortt, Edward

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Kilbride, Denis

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Crumley, Patrick

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molten)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Taylor, Theodere C. (Radcliffe)

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

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

  Toulmin, George

  Dawes, J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Devlin, Joseph

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Doris, W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McGhee, Richard

  White, Sir Luke (York E.R.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M'Callum, John M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Elverston, Harold

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

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

  Essex, Richard Walter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Young, William (Perth, Fast)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mooney, John J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  France, G. A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceed-
  1512
  ing, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
  Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.