§ 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. MOUNTI 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 ALLENWith 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. BATHURSTI 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 CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is going beyond the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI 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 GEORGEMy 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. BATHURSTAnd the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I noticed, nodded assent.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI nodded assent that that was the meaning of the hon. Member for Fulham's speech.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI 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 GEORGEIf 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. BATHURSTI 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 GEORGEI 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 LONGI 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 GEORGEI 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 FISHERThe 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 GEORGEThe 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 FISHERWill the right hon. Gentleman read the letter. The letter suggests that Mr. Harper should be allowed to give evidence.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI 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 LONGI 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 GEORGEIt 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 LONGI 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 FISHERMay 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 LONGI 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 GEORGEThere are three.
§ Mr. WALTER LONGYou 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.
1511| 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.