Commons Sitting of 5 August 1912

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

  GAS AUTHORITIES (RESIDUAL PRODUCTS).
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report whether any, and, if any, what restrictions should be imposed on gas authorities with respect to the purchase and manufacture of the residual products resulting from the manufacture of gas by other gas authorities, or of other chemicals.
  "That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution, and desire their concurrence."
  This Motion, which stands on the Paper in my name, requires, I think, a word or two of explanation. It deals with a subject which has been a matter of contest on a number of private Bills during this Session, and that contest to all appearance is likely to be renewed in the next and future Sessions. The Chairman of Committees in the other House, and I, have come together, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be very greatly in the interest of both parties and a great saving of expense if the matter was considered by a Joint Committee instead of having the subject a matter of contest on individual Bills, and that is the reason why the proposal is made to this House that a Joint Committee should be set up before which the contending parties could put forward their case and that we may have a report from that Joint Committee for the guidance of Private Bill Committees. That is why I move this Motion.
  Mr. JOYCE: If such a Committee were set up, would they have power to recommend other legislation to prevent municipal authorities, who at present under Acts of Parliament have power to carry on the work mentioned from doing so. Would this operate against them in anyway?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: It is a matter of some doubt how far those existing powers of gas authorities do go, and that is how the question has arisen. Some Private Bill Committees during this Session have inserted Clauses of a retrospective character placing restrictions upon the purchase of the residuals by gas authorities, and therefore it is necessary that this Committee should inquire into the whole question.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether it is intended that Members of this Joint Committee should be nominated by the Government, the Selection Committee, or by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The Motion following this, if it is agreed to by this House, would of course be made by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is the object of this Motion to produce uniformity amongst all classes that produce gas, whether companies or municipal corporations?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: That is so.
  Mr. COTTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, supposing those rules were laid down by the suggested Committee, would they apply to local authorities as well as companies?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The words "gas authorities" include both companies and local authorities that have statutory powers.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it suggested the Joint Committee should take evidence?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Yes; it is suggested both parties to the contest should appear before the Joint Committee by counsel if they desire.
  Mr. JOYCE: Whatever way the Committee reports I take it legislation would be necessary before any change was made?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: It would mean that in all probability the practice of Private Bill Committees would follow the recommendation of the Joint Committee.
  Mr. JOYCE: And come up for revision in this House?
  The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Yes.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution, and desire their concurrence.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented of Order, dated 23rd July, 1912, directing the Small Holdings Commissioners to carry into effect a scheme for the provision of small holdings in the county borough of Bournemouth [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented of the Annual Local Taxation (Scotland) Returns for the year 1910–11 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Copy presented of Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Metropolitan Water Board and Abstract of their Accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4956 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Address for "Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1911, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100:
  And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1911 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 285, of Session 1911)."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
  Copy presented of the National Health Insurance (Sanatorium Benefit, etc.) Order, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES, 1912–13 (SUPER- ANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented of Appendix to the Estimate for Civil Services, Class 6, Vote 1, containing a List of Superannuation and Retired Allowances payable on 30th November, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 297.]
  MORTALITY OF GOVERNMENT LIFE ANNUITANTS.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 2nd August; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 298.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE.
  Account presented of Receipts and Expenditure of the Paymaster-General on

  2633
  behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature in respect of the Funds of Suitors of the Court in the year ended 28th February, 1912, and of Account of the National Debt Commissioners for the same period in respect of Funds held by them on behalf of the Supreme Court of Judicature, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]

  PUBLIC RECORDS (COUNTY PALA- TINE OF DURHAM).
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy presented of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents removed from the Offices of the Prothonotary, the Clerk of the Crown, the Cursitor, and the Registrar of the County Palatine of Durham, and deposited in the Public Record Office, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Brixham Trawler "Ethel Lilian" (Collision).
  Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if his attention has been drawn to the case of the Brixham trawler "Ethel Lilian" BM. 309, which was towing her trawl on 19th July between Start Point and the Eddystone, with the regulation ball hoisted as prescribed, when a French steam trawler "La Champagne" B. 2758 bore down on her and shot their trawling gear when quite close and towed it across the stern of the "Ethel Lilian"; and seeing that the French wire warps cut through the manilla rope of the "Ethel Lilian" and the whole of the fishing gear of the latter, value £40, was lost, will he take immediate steps to deal with this case, and use all the means at his disposal to get ample compensation for the Brixham fishermen for the loss they have sustained; and (2) if his attention has been drawn to the case of the Brixham trawler "Naomi," which was towing her trawl about four miles from Dartmouth, shortly after 12 a.m. on Monday, 29th July, with the regulation light burning, when the French steam trawler "Maria Rose," B. 188, of Boulogne, crossed under her
  2634
  stern and damaged the gear of the "Naomi" to the extent of £30; and will he take immediate steps to get ample compensation for the owner of the "Naomi" for damage sustained?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I understand that this case and that of the "Naomi" have been reported to the Board of Trade, and that the masters of the boats who are bringing claims for compensation against the French owners in the Courts do not desire official intervention at present.
  Colonel BURN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our men labour under the greatest disadvantage because they cannot speak French, nor can they understand it, and when these matters come before a French tribunal they are distinctly handicapped?
  Mr. ACLAND: We are aware of that, and we have tried to persuade the French Government to conclude a convention with us similar to that which has been concluded in the North Sea, and we hope to obtain success in that endeavour. We are fully alive to the difficulties of cases such as the hon. Member has mentioned.
  Colonel BURN: May I ask—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must put down any further questions. I would remind him that there are ninety-nine questions on the Paper.

  Opium Traffic.
  Sir J. D. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state what has been the result of his correspondence with His Majesty's Minister at Peking regarding the inability of the Chinese Government to secure freedom for the sale of the large stocks of Indian opium now accumulated at treaty ports, and held up, contrary to treaty rights, to the loss of the merchants and others concerned?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Minister at Peking has, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, made repeated protests against the resrictions imposed on the trade in Indian opium in several provinces of China contrary to treaty rights. The Chinese Government have in reply undertaken to send the necessary instructions to the provincial authorities to withdraw the objectionable restrictions, but I

  2635
  regret to have to state that up to the present these instructions have had little, if any, effect. Further representations have been made both by Sir John Jordan in Peking and by the Secretary of State to the Chinese representative here.
  Sir J. D. REES: In view of the acknowledged impotence of the Chinese Government, what steps do the Foreign Office propose to take to protect British merchants?
  Mr. ACLAND: Steps have been taken already, and further steps will be taken if necessary.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. JARDINEasked what was the price paid for each of the eleven complete farms in Cambridgeshire, the twenty-eight complete farms in Somersetshire, and the thirteen complete farms in Worcestershire, purchased by the council of each county for small holdings purposes; and what was the total acreage of each farm?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the answer which I gave to a question addressed to me on 18th July by the hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, and that Worcestershire is a misprint for Wiltshire. The answer involves the recital of statistics which perhaps I may be allowed to circulate with the votes.—[See To-day's Written Answers.]

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is considering the value of the new cures for, and processes of inoculation against, foot-and-mouth disease discovered and being used with success in Holland, Germany, and elsewhere, and claiming to be more efficacious than any such remedies formerly employed in England, with a view to their recommendation in the event of the disease becoming so widespread, and the process of compensation so costly, as to necessitate the abandonment of the slaughtering-out policy?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board's veterinary officers are keeping themselves informed as to the cures and processes to which the hon. Member refers, but there is good reason to hope that the measures adopted by the Board for the
  2636
  extirpation of the disease will be effective, and that the contingency referred to in the latter part of the question will not arise.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, although it was well known in Bath, Frome, and the surrounding districts on the morning of 23rd July that there was a suspected outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the neighbourhood of Shepton Mallet, in Somerset, the market was held as usual at Frome on 24th July, and, owing to the fear of impending restrictions, an exceptionally large number of cattle was exposed there for sale, including some from Westcombe, six miles away; and whether, in such circumstances, the police or the local authority have and should exercise the power of closing a market contiguous to a suspected outbreak prior to its official confirmation?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The facts of the case to which the hon. Member refers are fully set out in the answer which I gave to the question of the hon. Member for North Dorset on Thursday last. As regards the latter part of the question, I may say that local authorities are already empowered, under Article 6 of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order of 1895, to prohibit the movement of any animal without waiting for the confirmation of the existence of disease, and this power is exercised in the case not only of suspected animals, but of all animals which may have been in contact therewith, whether at a market or otherwise.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is this not clearly a case in which such power ought to have been exercised?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I need hardly say that we always recommend most prompt action on the part of the local authorities.
  Mr. LYNCHasked (1) whether he can state what investigations have been instituted in order to discover the cause and the manner of spreading of the foot-and-mouth disease; (2) whether, in view of the importance of the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and the mystery surrounding the circumstances which favour it, he will promote exhaustive experiments on the part of the technical experts of his Department, and if necessary will invoke the aid of the most famous bacteriological laboratories in the country, so that the present opportunity may

  2637
  be availed of to the full to ascertain the etiology of this disease, and to provide means for its elimination?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer by referring him to the answer given on Monday last to the similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division.
  Mr. LYNCH: Besides taking advantage of the resources of his own Department, will the right hon. Gentleman avail himself of the whole of the technical ability of his country to stamp out this disease by finding out the cause of it as Pasteur did in the case of anthrax.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, we are endeavouring to use such scientific assistance as we can take advantage of, but we are not prepared to have a testing station for foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether there have been any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the last three days; how many outbreaks have now occurred in England since the reappearance of the disease; whether the cause of any of these outbreaks, other than those traceable to Ireland, has been ascertained or suspected by the Board; and whether the staff of the Board has proved to be sufficient for the work which these outbreaks have entailed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A further outbreak was confirmed late on Thursday evening on premises at Chollerton, Northumberland, belonging to the owner of premises on which the disease had previously existed, but I am glad to say that since that date no fresh case of the disease has occurred. The total number of outbreaks is now sixty. The reply to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the negative. It has been necessary for the time being to augment the staff of the Board and Treasury authority for the purpose has been obtained.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Is there now a member or a representative of the Board in all the districts where disease has occurred?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly.
  Mr. M. BARLOW: Would that representative be able to allow farmers to remove their stock across the road?
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether a deputation of Irish gentlemen interested in the cattle trade waited upon him one day last week and informed him that unless the embargo upon the importation into England of Irish cattle was removed there would be an immediate strike against the payment of all taxes and rent in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will say what reply he gave to the deputation?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such statement has been made at any deputation which I have received.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a story to this effect was prevalent all over Ireland last week? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Ireland during the last five days, and in what locality?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No fresh outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Ireland during the last five days, but two additional cases of the disease were confirmed on the 1st instant amongst cattle which had been under observation on a restricted farm at Swords, county Dublin. In accordance with the usual practice, all the animals on these lands, numbering 346 cattle and 580 sheep, are being slaughtered. No cases of the disease have occurred in Ireland outside the Swords district.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the 1st instant is not within the last five days?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The 1st instant was on the 1st. The distinction is that no fresh outbreaks have appeared in Ireland during the last five days, but on the farm mentioned this outbreak has occurred.
  Mr. FIELD: Is it a fact that outside the Swords district no outbreak has occurred in any part of Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes. I have already said that.

  New Dockyard Works (Great Britain and Germany).
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state how much

  2639
  has been spent on new dockyard construction by the Governments of this country and of Germany during the past ten years?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I assume that by "new dockyard construction the hon. Member refers to works and not to shipbuilding. The question has been very fully examined by the Department, and it is regretted that owing to the divergent forms in which the estimates of the two counries are framed it is difficult to give any reliable figures.
  Mr. FELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the amounts for this country?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, because we should have to examine most voluminous expenditure involving a variety of considerations such as dockyards, harbours, storehouses, bridges, the construction of roads, and so on, and that would be a task which we ought not to put upon an already overworked Department.
  Sir W. BYLES: Are not both countries spending far too much on this work?

  Irish Railways (Development Commission Grants).
  Mr. MULDOONasked whether the Irish Board of Works and the Irish Agricultural Department reported to the Development Commissioners in favour of Grants being made to the Cork and Muskerry and the Donoughmore Extension, the Schull and Skibbereen, and the Timoleague and Courtmacsherry Railways, in respect of improvements necessitated by original defective construction; whether the Development Commissioners refused to recommend any Grants being made, and on what grounds have they so refused; whether any of the Development Commissioners ever visited Ireland in connection with these claims; and whether the Treasury propose to take any steps to carry out the recommendation of the Irish Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways in respect of these lines?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The Irish Board of Works expressed no opinion on the general merits of the application, apart from its technical engineering and financial aspects. The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland recommended
  2640
  it for favourable consideration. The Development Commissioners declined to recommend an advance from the Development Fund on the grounds that the primary object of the application was the relief of the local rates, and that if the application were granted it would not, in their opinion, lead to any agricultural development commensurate with the expenditure required. They did not think it necessary that a personal visit should be paid to the district on their behalf, as they had before them an official report giving full particulars of its population, agriculture, and traffic facilities. The Development Commission not having recommended an advance from the Development Fund, the Treasury is precluded from making an advance from the fund, and the case for an advance from other sources appears to be still weaker than that for an advance from the fund.

  Fair-Wages Clause.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the firm of Millar and Richards, typefounders, Edinburgh, has any Government contract; if so, whether the employés of this firm are out on strike against the low rates of wages; whether the wages paid by this firm do not correspond to the wages paid by printing firms in Edinburgh who make their own type, and that in addition the firm employs about forty girls at an average wage of 5s. per week; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with a view to securing conformity with the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: So far as I am aware, the firm mentioned by the hon. Member are not Government contractors.

  Prison Service (Class I. Instructors).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officers recently made Class 1 instructors in the various local prisons are the first of that class made in His Majesty's local prisons service; whether, on their appointments, they were informed that the regulations under which they were appointed would be altered; and, if not, will he advise His Majesty's Prison Commissioners to restore to those officers the privileges which have been taken away?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The promotions were notified on 2nd July, and on 12th July Governors were informed that these officers would be excused evening duty and all discipline duty, except on alternate Saturday afternoons and Sundays, when their presence would be required owing to only half the staff being on duty. Before promotion to be Class I. instructors, they had been liable to do discipline duty and evening duty throughout the week; but it was hoped that it might have been possible, in the case of the comparatively few officers selected for Class I., to dispense with all requirements for discipline duty, and this was notified by Standing Order of April last. Unfortunately, however, experience has shown that a complete dispensation cannot be given as a right in all prisons, where it now appears that it would throw an undue strain on the other members of the staff. It was necessary, therefore, to cancel the Standing Order of April almost immediately after the first appointments were made in the beginning of July. I see no sufficient reason for altering the present system.

  Cotton Trade (New Disease).
  Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a new form of disease affecting weavers at one or two mills in Colne and Burnley; and whether he will cause minute inquiries to be made with a view to preventing similar outbreaks?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have received a report from the factory inspector on this subject. It appears that some few weeks ago certain weavers in a Burnley factory were attacked by an unusual cough which affected their breathing. The shed in question is a dry one, ventilated by six exhaust fans, and the general conditions are good. In order to investigate the matter, the firm at once called in experts, who expressed the opinion that the outbreak was due to some mouldy sago in the size used in dressing the warps, causing mildew in the shed. In accordance with their advice, the mill was closed and thoroughly disinfected by the local authorities. The sago is now being specially treated to prevent the development of mildew and the warps damped by a solution of carbolic acid, with the result that a decided improvement has already taken
  2642
  place. A very similar outbreak occurred in a factory in Colne in the spring of 1911, which was also traced to mildew on the warps. After proper treatment and disinfection of the premises no further trouble occurred.

  Durham Standing Joint Committee (Police-constable Welsh).
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked on what grounds the Home Office refuse their consent to the decision of the standing joint committee of the Durham County Council to pay Police-constable J. Welsh, who had an accident when on duty, and who has ten years and eleven months' service in the force, a pension according to Scale B, Section B, of the Police Act of 1890?
  Mr. McKENNA: The case referred to by my hon. Friend is presumably that of ex-Police-constable John Welsh. On examination of the Durham Police Pension Fund accounts at the Home Office, it was found that a higher pension had been granted to this man than the Statute, according to the generally accepted interpretation, would permit; and the Government contribution had to be adjusted accordingly. The local authority were informed of this, and it would appear that they thought it necessary to reduce the amount previously awarded. As the point is one of some importance, I am consulting the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter.

  Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether since Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, was not repealed by the Trades. Disputes Act of 1906, but is still in force, he will explain why this Section has not been enforced in respect of picketing in public thoroughfares during the transport workers' strike?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Section in question has been enforced. About fifty persons have been prosecuted under it by the police, besides many cases of intimidation dealt with under other provisions of the law.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in future he will prevent the police doing picketing?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think the police do picketing.

  Juvenile Offenders.
  Sir W. BYLESasked what is the proportion of juvenile to adult offenders sent to prison in the past year; whether the proportion is increasing or decreasing; what are the numbers of cases put under the operation of the Probation Act; and whether the number is satisfactory to the Home Office or whether any steps can be taken to encourage magistrates to make a wider use of this Act of Parliament, with a view to reducing the number of first offenders sent to prisons?
  Mr. McKENNA: In 1911, out of 159,745 convicted offenders received in prison, only twenty-one were under sixteen; the number of juvenile prisoners has been diminishing very markedly for years past, and has been brought by the operation of the Children Act almost to a vanishing point. The number of persons put on probation during 1911 is not yet available, but in 1910 it was 10,223, and there were 63,735 other cases where the Court of Summary Jurisdiction held that the charge was proved, but discharged the offender without punishment under Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act. No doubt there are numerous cases to which the Act might properly be applied but is not, just as there are undoubtedly cases in which the discharge of an offender without punishment is shown to have been mistaken leniency; but I think the figures make it clear that on the whole magistrates are ready to take full advantage of the Act. I am, however, considering whether by means of a further circular I can assist magistrates towards a more general and uniform exercise of the powers given them by this most useful Act.

  Non-Payment of Fines.
  Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether it is the practice of the Home Office, when an offender is committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, to add to the fine the cost of conveyance from the town of committal to the prison; and how far the promised reform of allowing time for the payment of fines before committal to prison has been carried?
  Mr. McKENNA: The cost of a convicted prisoner's conveyance to gaol may be included among the costs he may be ordered to pay, and at present it is the usual practice to do this. I do not think the practice is a good one, and am taking steps to secure its discontinuance. I hope
  2644
  next Session to introduce a Bill providing, inter alia, for time for the payment of fines being allowed in all cases where this is proper and practicable. Circulars from the Home Office have recommended magistrates to follow this practice wherever possible, and, pending legislation, I shall take every opportunity that may occur for encouraging the extension of the practice.
  Sir W. BYLES: Seeing there has been no opportunity of discussing the Prison Vote at all this year, cannot any steps be taken to make these questions and answers public?
  Mr. McKENNA: They appear in the daily Report, and are circulated to hon. Members also.

  Police Prosecutions.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if the last yearly Return of police statistics shows that 11,995 persons were discharged after being arrested; whether the 5,829 persons who were tried and acquitted are included in the foregoing figures; and whether the statement that 1,041 houses of bad character were known to the police on 1st April, 1910, means that this is the total of such houses in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend refer to the disposal of persons apprehended in 1910, and also dealt with on summonses for indictable offences in England and Wales. The total of 11,995 is made up of 6,166 persons discharged by the magistrates under Section 25 of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and 5,829 persons acquitted by the magistrates after summary trial. The figure of 1,041 for houses of bad character relates only to England and Wales.
  Mr. BOOTH: Are we to accept this as a statement of the actual numbers.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, the police can only give figures showing the number of bad houses known to them. There may be houses of which they do not know.
  Mr. BOOTH: Why, if 1,041 such houses were known to the police, were not prosecutions instituted?
  Mr. McKENNA: After the discussions we have had upstairs my hon. Friend must know that there are no means of proceeding against such houses unless certain conditions are fulfilled.

  Police Training School.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if there is a training school for police constables to become ready and efficient in giving evidence in the courts; whether mock trials take place in the Metropolis in which policemen practice giving corroborative evidence, and in which the decision of the pseudo-magistrates is invariably given against civilians; whether new recruits are regularly sent to the police courts to learn from the old members of the force how to give evidence and to gain confidence; and if extra wages are paid for such attendances?
  Mr. McKENNA: All men newly recruited to the Metropolitan Police are passed through a training school, where one of the subjects taught is that of giving evidence clearly and audibly. There is no foundation for the imputation in my hon. Friend's question that the police are practised in giving corroborative evidence. They are sent to police courts so that they may learn how cases are there disposed of, but they receive no extra wages for such attendance.
  Mr. BOOTH: Do the constables only attend the Court in order to see how cases are disposed of, or is it to see how cases are made out by other constables?
  Mr. McKENNA: They attend the Court in order, when they are called as witnesses, they may know what the course of procedure is, and how a case is or should be conducted.

  Forcible Feeding in Prison.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked whether Miss Alice Walters has been released from prison; how many times was she forcibly fed; how long was she on hunger strike; what was the condition of her health when released; what reason did the medical officer give for advising her release; and is there any record as to the condition of her health when admitted to prison?
  Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner was released from prison on 23rd July. She was fed by tube once, having for forty-eight hours refused to take food. She resisted, and became hysterical, and her release was recommended on account of her nervous excitement. After the order for her release was notified to her she calmed down and took food. On her reception in prison she was described as being in fair physical health.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Was this lady released?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, on account of her nervous excitement.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Was there any report on the condition of her health when she was released?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend could not have heard my answer.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, I did.
  Mr. McKENNA: She resisted and became hysterical, and her release was recommended because of her nervous excitement. After the order for her release was notified to her, she calmed down and took her food.
  Mr. W. E. HARVEY: Would a man have been released under similar conditions?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, if he had become hysterical.

  Telephone Service.
  Captain MURRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether subscribers to the telephone message rate service are charged 1d. if the number inquired for is engaged or if the operator connects the inquirer with the wrong number?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The answer is in the negative, but where a subscriber has been connected with the wrong number he should inform the operator of the mistake at the time, as otherwise the operator may suppose that his call has been effective, and charge accordingly.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Postmaster-General why the controller of the London telephone service refuses to give a daily account of the number of telephone calls charged for; whether subscribers are charged for calls they have never had; and whether he will have an inquiry made as to the way in which the accounts of the telephone service are conducted?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: To render daily accounts of calls made by telephone subscribers would greatly increase the cost of account work. Information as to the number of calls registered at any date is always given to subscribers on inquiry. Complaints of overcharge, which are very few in proportion to the number of accounts rendered, are always carefully investigated, and test checks are made when any reasonable doubt arises. The system

  2647
  of recording and charging calls was investigated some time ago by a special committee of the London Chamber pf Commerce, who reported that the means for checking subscribers' calls were mechanically efficient, and that the percentage of errors was very small. They also stated that they had investigated the method of book-keeping, and satisfied themselves that every possible check was made to ensure accuracy in subscribers' accounts. The methods referred to are those now in use, and the same care is exercised in their application. I shall be happy to furnish the Noble Lord with full details of the system, or to arrange for him or any other hon. Member to see the working of the system if he will communicate with me at any time.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is there any method of recording the number of calls?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. There is an automatic register at all exchanges.
  Viscount WOLMER: If the right hon. Gentleman has a record, why cannot the telephone subscribers have the record when there are complaints of overcharges?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The record can be obtained on any day, as I have already stated in my answer, but I think subscribers generally would very greatly resent having daily, or even weekly, records of their calls sent to them.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Is it possible to get monetary details of the extra charges sent in monthly?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If anyone has any doubt as to the accuracy of his account, it certainly can be supplied, but the cost of accounting in the Post Office is already enormous, and I do not want to add to it by giving fresh details, unless they are really necessary.
  Mr. G. FABER: Is it not perfectly impossible to check the charges sent in on the 1st of each month. The right hon. Gentleman knows one cannot tell whether 6s. is right or wrong.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is very easy to keep a check on one's business with the Post Office, if it is desirable.
  Mr. G. FABER: How?

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury upon what date His Majesty's Government arrived at the decision to withdraw from the Brussels Sugar Convention?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter has been under the consideration of the Cabinet from time to time for the last six months, and the course which His Majesty's Government would in all probability feel themselves bound to adopt in the events which have happened was foreshadowed in the Papers laid before Parliament in March and May. The actual decision, as I stated the other day, was arrived at quite recently. I cannot give the exact date.
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if the notice of intention to withdraw from the Brussels Convention will be given provisionally, so that the notice may be cancelled during next year by the Government which may be in power in this country, in case it may be desired to do so for any reason?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The notice which has been given is not provisional, but of course it does not take practical effect until September, 1913.
  Mr. FELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest some means by which the decision can be made provisional in case the Empire desires the Convention to continue?
  The PRIME MINISTER: From the point of view of the hon. Member the decision to withdraw is provisional, as it does not take effect until a year after next September, so that if the contingency he desires arises there will be ample time for it to be taken advantage of.
  Mr. FELL: Can it be withdrawn?

  House of Commons (Payment of Members).
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister what opportunity he will give for the discussion and Division on the question of the payment of salaries to Members, seeing that it was passed under the Closure without discussion in Supply; that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill was closured before it was reached, and it could not be moved on the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I offered to put down this Vote so that it could be discussed before the close of Supply if any general desire were expressed, but other Votes were preferred.

  West Coast of Africa (Steamship Subsidies).
  Mr. LYELLasked the Postmaster-General what subsidies are paid to Messrs. Elder, Dempster and Company and to Messrs. Woermann in connection with their services of steamships to and from British ports on the West Coast of Africa; and whether, in view of the complaints which have been received, he will consider the question of making these subsidies conditional on an improvement in the sanitary conditions of the steamships?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Messrs. Elder, Dempster are paid an annual sum of £15,335 for the conveyance of letter mails to and from West Africa. A further amount, which varies according to the volume of traffic, is paid in respect of the conveyance of parcel mails. £6,739 was paid under this head for the year ending 31st March, 1912. The Woermann Line performs the service under contract with the German Government, and I am not in a position to furnish the information asked for. I have no knowledge of the complaints mentioned by the hon. Member, but in any case the only ground upon which the postal subsidy is conditional is the punctual performance of the mail service.

  Telegraphic Service, County Kerry.
  Mr. BOLANDasked what facilities will be given for the delivery and dispatch of telegrams at Parknasilla, county Kerry?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A telegraph office at Parknasilla would practically be of no benefit to anyone except the employés or customers of the hotel, and its provision at the public cost would therefore, not be justified. A private wire to the hotel for the dispatch and receipt of telegrams could be provided at a rental of £15 5s. a year.

  Dublin Post Office (Unestablished Porters).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Postmaster-General on what grounds the London Controller of Stores decided that the unestablished porters at Dublin who are performing the best work there were ineligible for promotion to the vacancies for third-class storemen; is he aware that the
  2650
  Controller of Stores has no personal knowledge of the Dublin men who were refused promotion, and that he did not call for any reports from the men's superior officers, and was therefore unable to compare their qualifications with the men serving in Great Britain?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The unestablished porters at Dublin have not been declared to be ineligible for promotion to storemanships. There were three vacancies for third-class storemen at Dublin, and after reports had been obtained one of these was allotted to a Dublin porter. The other two vacancies were allotted to men who were senior to any man at Dublin, including the man advanced. The unestablished porters in the various depôts of the Stores Department are, as my hon. Friend is aware, on a combined seniority.

  Prime Minister's Dublin Speech (Telegraphic Delay).
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Postmaster-General if any reply has been received as to the cause of the delay of telegraphing the report of the recent Asquith meeting in Dublin, whereby the whole of of the Press of Great Britain and other places were unable to publish the speech of the Prime Minister on the Home Rule question; and whether he will call for Reports on the working of the wires, etc., from London and the other offices working to Dublin on the night of the demonstration, so as to find out who is responsible for the delay?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As I informed the hon. Member last Monday, I am making a close investigation into the matter, and I will acquaint him with the result as soon as possible.
  Mr. NANNETTI: Will the right hon. Gentleman act on my suggestion, and get reports as to the working of the various wires on this occasion?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A very thorough inquiry is being made as to the treatment of the telegrams at the various stages?
  Mr. NANNETTI: In view of the importance of this question, how long am I to wait for an answer. Has any inquiry been made in Dublin?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is because of its importance that the inquiry is an elaborate one. I am not aware of any

  2651
  delay. A good many points have to be considered as to the treatment of the telegrams, not only in Dublin and at other centres, and these have to be investigated by the traffic managers, who have been appointed to make special inquiry. The investigation was set on foot immediately, and is still proceeding.

  Wireless Telegraphy (Pacific Cable Board).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has seen the recent report of the manager of the Pacific Cable Board to that body upon certain systems of wireless telegraphy; and, if so, whether he can cause a copy of this report to be circulated to Members of the House of Commons?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have not seen the report referred to. I understand that the board regard it as confidential.

  British Honduras (Naturalisation).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the naturalisation of a foreigner in British Honduras holds good beyond the limits of that Colony; if not, what is the status of such a person outside the Colony from the point of view of international law; whether any Committee has ever been held to investigate the matter; and, if so, when it reported, whether the Report was published, and what is the nature of such Report?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Naturalisation in a British Colony is valid only within the limits of the Colony. It is not possible to make any general statement as to the status of a person who has been naturalised in a British Colony when he is beyond its limits; that status depends in the main on the law of the country of his original nationality and on the law of the place where he finds himself. The matter has been investigated by Committees in 1901 and 1908, and their Reports have been published as Cd. 723 and on pages 237–241 of Cd. 5746–1. The matter was further considered at the Imperial Conference of 1911, and the results of that discussion will be found summarised in Resolution X. of the Conference; the Report will be found in Cd. 5745, pages 249–271, and the text of the Resolution on page 16.

  Customs Surveyors (Pensionable Allowances).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the pensionable allowances of £30 each hitherto granted to eight Customs surveyors discharging the duties of tea inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, by special approval of the Treasury, will continue to be paid in future?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): This question is now under consideration.

  Conveyance of Property (Removable Fixtures).
  Mr. PRETYMANasked whether a conveyance or transfer of a house, where the amount of the consideration for the sale does not exceed £500, is held by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to form part of a larger transaction when the removable fixtures in the house have been taken over by the purchaser at a price which, together with the consideration for the sale, exceeds £500?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the reference to the Section of the Statute?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot now, but I will do so in the course of the evening, if the right hon. Gentleman would like to know it.

  Cotton Growing (India).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many, if any, educated Indians are being trained by the Government as cotton-growing experts in India?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): No Indians have been specially trained as cotton experts out of India. But the course of instruction followed in the agricultural colleges in India includes the study of cotton cultivation, as also the study of other Indian staples.
  Mr. LEACHasked the number of European experts in cotton growing now employed by the Government in India, and the salaries paid to each?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The duties of the officers composing the Indian Agricultural Service are not, save in one or two exceptional cases, differentiated in respect of particular crops. A cotton specialist, whose work is largely of a botanical kind, is attached to the central bureau. A Return, giving the numerical strength and the salaries of the members of the Indian Agricultural Service, will be sent to the hon. Member.
  Mr. LEACHasked what percentage of the cotton produce of the world is grown in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The mills of the world are said to require from twenty to twenty-one million bales of 500 lbs., of which about four million bales may be looked for from India.
  Mr. LEACHasked what percentage of the cotton used in Germany is grown in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Reckoned on the import, the percentage was twenty in 1910 and thirteen in 1911.
  Mr. LEACHasked what percentage of the cotton used in Austria, Italy, and Belgium, respectively, is grown in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Reckoned on the import, the percentage was 32 in 1910 and 22 in 1911 in the case of Austria; in the case of Italy 35 in 1910 and 29 in 1911; in the case of Belgium 44 in 1910 and 33 in 1911. In the latter case the import figure includes any cotton that may afterwards be re-exported.
  Mr. LEACHasked what percentage of the cotton used in Japan is grown in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Reckoned on the import, the percentage was 62 in 1910 and 58 in 1911.

  Experimental Seed Farms (India).
  Mr. LEACHasked how many experimental seed farms the Government supports in India?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The information is not available.

  Land Banks (India).
  Mr. LEACHasked if the Government of India is encouraging the formation of land banks in India to assist the
  2654
  natives financially, at reasonable rates of interest, and thus save them from falling into the hands of extortionate moneylenders?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the affirmative. The hon. Member will find an account of what is being done to promote co-operative credit societies and central banks at page 49 of the Return presented to Parliament on 28th May, 1912, on the moral and material progress of India during the year 1910–11.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Under-Secretary take any steps to prevent the use of the term "natives" in this question; it is held to be very offensive to Indians.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Perhaps the hon. Member will make that representation to the hon. Member who asks the question.

  Indian Students in England.
  Sir J. D. REESasked into what contract or agreement the India Office have entered with Mr. Mallet; whether that gentleman's pension terms are those obtaining in the Civil Service in respect of members thereof who have entered by the usual gate; whether the appointment is to be permanent in character; and whether the supervision of Indian students is now to be regarded as a department of India Office administration and a regularly recurring charge on the Indian taxpayer?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is not customary to make appointments to the Home Civil Service under special contract or agreement, and no departure from the usual practice was made in the case of Mr. Mallet. His appointment is a permanent one, and the usual pension conditions apply to it. The supervision of Indian students by an officer appointed by the Secretary of State, whose salary is defrayed from Indian revenues, came into force in 1909, and the new appointment, as I have explained to the House, marks an expansion of the system already established.
  Sir J. D. REES: What reason has the Secretary of State to suppose that the natives of India wish to pay for this grandmotherly supervision of Hindus who have adopted the habits of natives of Europe?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State acts upon his own responsibility. In this matter he was expanding the system of

  2655
  looking after students in this country on the advice of a Select Committee of his Council.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has any communication been held with the Government of India to show that the Indian taxpayer wishes them to take this step?

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DELANYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial, signed by fifteen small holders in the neighbourhood of Levalley, Rathdowney, Queen's County, whose farms do not average more than seven acres, and who have a total of 93 persons depending upon them, pointing out that in the immediate vicinity there is the farm of Levalley, consisting of 112 Irish acres, untenanted, and temporarily let for grazing of stock, and requesting that steps be taken to acquire this farm for the purpose of enlarging their holdings; and can he say what course the Estates Commissioners propose to adopt in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The memorial referred to has been received by the Estates Commissioners. An inspection has been made of 187 acres of untenanted land on the Crown estate, in the neighbourhood referred to, and the Commissioners furnished the trustees with a preliminary estimate of the amount which they would be prepared to advance for the purchase of the lands if formal proceedings for sale to the Commissioners were instituted by the trustees, who have not yet instituted such proceedings.
  Mr. DUFFYasked the Chief Secretary if Lord Clonbrock offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners that section of his property described as the Quansborough estate, in Mulla, county Galway; has the Abbey Goomican farm, included in the Quansborough estate, been acquired; and, if not, having regard to the number of small holdings in the district and the fact that a memorial, signed by seventy tenants, was sent to the Commissioners asking them to acquire this farm, will he represent to the Estates Commissioners the desirability of reopening negotiations with Lord Clonbrock, with a view of taking over this farm in the interest of the small farmers of the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question
  2656
  on this subject on the 13th November last, to which I have nothing to add.

  Labourers Acts (Ireland).
  Mr. LUNDONasked whether any portion of the million granted last year for the benefit of the Labourers Acts has been allocated to any rural councils; and, if so, will the names of the councils and the amount of Grants made be published?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Out of the additional million pounds provided by the Labourers Act of 1911 loans amounting to £77,325 have been already sanctioned to ten rural districts. In addition, Orders have been made by the Local Government Board's inspectors, after local inquiry, confirming schemes in thirty-three districts, for which loans of not less than £234,000 will be required. The remaining schemes received are being dealt with in order of urgency. The names of the rural districts, and the amounts of loans sanctioned in each financial year, are published in the Annual Reports of the Local Government Board.

  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary if he will state, as was done on the occasion of the introduction of Rule 127 (b), the date of the meeting at which it was resolved by the Commissioners of National Education to formulate and introduce the rule known as Rule 92 (j) which compels a married woman teacher to be absent herself from school for three months after child-birth, and to employ a substitute at her own expense during that period; can he state the reasons which led the Commissioners to introduce Rule 92 (j); whether before doing so they consulted the various managers' associations and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, or did they before introducing it obtain medical opinion as to its necessity; and, if so, what medical authority was so consulted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Rule referred to by the hen. Member was adopted by the Commissioners of National Education at their meeting on 4th April, 1911. The Commissioners considered the Rule a salutary one both in the interests of the health of the teacher and the efficiency of the public service. Before making the Rule the Commissioners did not consult any of the various bodies referred to. The Central Council of the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association passed a resolution approving

  2657
  of the Regulation, but recommended that the substitutes should be paid by the Commissioners. So far as I know, no medical authority was consulted.
  Sir W. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary from how many teachers has salary and other emoluments been withheld for non-compliance with Rule 92 (j) of the Commissioners of National Education since its introduction in July, 1911, up to the present time; in how many of these cases has it been represented that it was found impossible to comply with the rule, and what steps have the Commissioners taken to investigate cases in which such representations have been made; what is the total amount withheld from teachers for non-compliance with that rule, and what has been, or will be, done with the money so withheld; and whether, in view of the fact that the rule has not worked well and has imposed hardship and suffering on teachers, he will advise the Commissioners to withdraw it and revert to the arrangement which existed prior to June, 1911?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the information is not available, and its preparation would take a considerable time. The Commissioners have at present under consideration representations made to them by me in reference to the operation of this rule.
  Sir W. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the sum of £18 17s. 8d. has been withheld from Mrs. O'Connell, principal teacher of Streamstown Girls' School, county Westmeath, owing to her inability to comply with Rule 92 (j) of the Commissioners of National Education, notwithstanding the fact that the manager of the school furnished the Commissioners with certified copies of the advertisements which Mrs. O'Connell had inserted in her efforts to procure a substitute, together with a statement from the newspaper manager that no replies were received to these advertisements, and his own further statement that he was satisfied that everything possible had been done under the circumstances to comply with the rule; whether he is further aware that, disregarding all these circumstances, the Commissioners refused to alter their decision and continue to withhold Mrs. O'Connell's salary, Mrs. O'Connell having worked in her school from 18th March to 16th May, 1912, and, with the exception of a fortnight's
  2658
  vacation at Easter, which has been allowed for, she has received no salary or other payment for that time; whether on one of the days for which payment has been refused, namely, 24th April, 1912, the senior inspector visited the school, remained there from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., and, as a result of his inspection, reported that the proficiency of the pupils in Mrs. O'Connell's school was very good; and whether, in the circumstances, he will consider the desirability of further inquiry; and if he will so advise the Education Board?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that a deduction has been made from the salary of Mrs. O'Connell, as stated in the question. From the advertisements submitted by the teacher, it appears that she prescribed qualifications and attainments for her substitute entirely in excess of those required by the Commissioners, and it would seem to be owing to this circumstance that she had no response to her advertisements. As I have already informed the hon. Member, the Commissioners are considering the representations made to them by me on this subject.

  County Cork Magistracy.
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that Daniel McCarthy, clerk of the union, Skibbereen, has recently been sworn in as a justice of the peace for the county of Cork; whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had previously to this appointment expressed his determination not under any circumstances to appoint Mr. McCarthy, or any union clerk, to the commission; whether, in Mr. McCarthy's application and otherwise, the fact that he was clerk of the union was concealed; whether both the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of the county have declared that if this fact had been disclosed the appointment would not have been made; and whether any steps are now going to be taken in the case?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Lord Chancellor informs me that Mr. Daniel McCarthy, clerk of the Skibbereen Union, has recently been sworn in as a magistrate for the county of Cork. The Lord Chancellor had not previously refused to appoint Mr. McCarthy. As I have already stated in reply to a previous question of the hon.

  2659
  Member, at the time of the appointment the Lord Chancellor had no knowledge of the fact that Mr. McCarthy was a clerk of a union, and if he had known it he would not have appointed him.
  Mr. SHEEHY: Is it the practice of the Lord Chancellor in all cases to make inquiries as to the character and position of a man before he appoints him?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The gentleman in question was recommended to him by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and I suppose inquiries were made, but perhaps they were not directed to ask him to state all the public appointments he holds.
  Mr. MULDOON: Is it not a fact that the clerk of a union can fill no other office; that if there was any description at all he must have been so described, and is it a fact that in this case the Lord Chancellor made no inquiry whatever?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know nothing what ever about that except what the Lord Chancellor tells me, which is that he had no knowledge whatever that this gentleman, when he appointed him, was clerk to the union.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is it not a fact that the police have to report on these appointments before they are made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. I do not think it has gone that length yet.
  Mr. MULDOON: Is it not a fact that the Lord Chancellor knows the Skibbereen district perfectly well and must have known the position held by this gentleman, and is it not notorious that Daniel McCarthy has humbugged both the Lord Lieutenant of the county and the Lord Chancellor, and under these circumstances, which of the three is going to hold his post?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can only answer for the Lord Chancellor.

  Disturbance at Edgeworthstown.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on Wednesday night last a force of police was drafted into the town of Edgeworthstown to prevent a meeting of the Town Tenants League there, and that without provocation of any kind the police set upon the people and batoned them, six men and some women and children being seriously
  2660
  wounded; will he say who ordered this baton charge; who was in command of the police; and will he direct an inquiry into the whole matter immediately?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that on the 31st July a meeting of the Town Tenants and Labour Leagues was held at Edgeworthstown. The meeting was not interfered with in any way until the crowd attempted to proceed towards the residence of the landlord whom the meeting was called to denounce. The district inspector informed them that he could not allow them to proceed further in that direction, when an attempt was made to rush the police, a sergeant was knocked down and the district inspector struck with a heavy stone. The district inspector then ordered the police to draw batons and charge. The police saw no women or children in the crowd, and, so far as they know, no civilian was seriously wounded, although probably some received slight injuries. Fourteen police were injured from stones and broken bottles thrown by the crowd. I see no reason for any inquiry into the matter.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sixteen people had to receive medical treatment as the result of this baton charge, and inasmuch as his information comes from the district inspector whose action is impugned, will lie hold an independent enquiry into the whole transaction?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Sixteen civilians were injured and fourteen police were injured also, so it is not unequal.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is it a fact that the police were armed and the crowd were not?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know what you call a broken bottle.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (DEDUCTIONS).
    Mr. HUDSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company are deducting 3d. per week from the wages of the men who are in receipt of 2s. 4d. and 2s. 6d. per day; and whether the National Insurance Commissioners have given authority for uniform supplied, overtime, and payment for Sunday duty to be calculated in the aggregate as daily

    2661
    earnings in order to bring the daily wage up to more than 2s. 6d. per day for the purposes of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Irish Commissioners are not aware of the amounts being deducted by the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company from, the wages of employés in receipt of 2s. 4d. and 2s. 6d. per day. On a statement furnished by the secretary of the company, making no reference to uniform or overtime, the Irish Commissioners advised them the rates were, for worker 2d. and for employer 3½d. If the full facts of the case are submitted to the Commissioners on the forms available for the purpose the question will be determined in accordance with the regulations made under Section 66 of the Act.

    CONTRIBUTION CARDS (POSTAGE STAMPS).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the Insurance Commissioners can arrange to transfer the value of stamps where, in error, postage stamps have been placed on National Insurance cards instead of the special health stamps?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In cases in which employers have inadvertently affixed postage stamps to contribution cards in payment of contributions, arrangements have been made to issue fresh cards, stamped with the health insurance stamps, in exchange for the incorrectly stamped cards if application is made by the employers immediately after the stamps have been affixed. This concession can, however, only be granted for a very limited time.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is there any reason why ordinary postage stamps should not be available for this purpose? It would save everybody a great deal of trouble.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That question would need a fuller explanation than I can give at the present moment. It is regarded as vital by the Post Office that there should be special health stamps.
    Mr. TOUCHE: What is meant by "immediately after the stamps have been affixed"? Does it mean the same day or the same week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A certain amount of latitude should be allowed, but it will be impossible to allow more that a certain amount of latitude.

    GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) EMPLOYÉS' BENEFIT SOCIETY.
    Mr. CLANCYasked, with reference to the case of the Great Southern and Western Railway (Ireland) Employés' Benefit Society (23), whether the Irish Insurance Commissioners are aware that the committee of this society has not been elected by the general body of the employés, but of such members of the old sick fund as agreed to the proposed rules of the new society mentioned and expressed such agreement on a form issued to them and signed by the general manager of the company; and, if they are not so aware and if the fact is as stated, whether such a society will be held to be properly constituted from the point of view of the National Insurance Act; (24) whether the Irish Insurance Commissioners have yet inquired into the allegation that the company have been forcing their employés into membership of that society by prescribing that no person shall be continued as a member unless he joins the State section of the society which becomes approved by the Insurance Commissioners; whether the Commissioners are aware that the first proposal of the committee of workers was to leave it optional with the employés to join either section of the society as each person might choose, and that this proposal was overruled by the company through their general manager; and, if they are aware of the truth of those allegations-whether they will sanction the State insurance section of the society as an approved society and thus condone a direct attempt to deprive the employés of the company of their right freely to select the approved society or societies to which they wish to belong?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The application for approval is now being considered and full inquiries are now being made into the circumstances alleged by my hon. Friend. I think it would be undesirable to make a further statement while the application is still under consideration by the Commissioners, but the Commissioners will in any case take precautions to ensure (hat the spirit of the Act is not contravened by any of the rules subject to their approval.
    Mr. CLANCY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government would approve of any action of the Commissioners which would tend to force workers into particular insurance societies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, the great object of the Commissioners is to prevent, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Insurance Act, workers being forced into any particular society.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Commissioners have already sanctioned societies the joining of which has been made a condition of service?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, I do not think so.
    Mr. HUDSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Great Southern and Western Railway ceased to make membership in their sick fund part of their contract of service?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That I cannot say at the present moment. The whole matter has been fully gone into by the Irish Commissioners, and no approval has been given.

    MEMBERS OF APPROVED SOCIETIES.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether, in view of the fact that uncertainty still exists in numerous cases as to whether persons are insurable or not, and in many cases it will be impossible to obtain decisions at an early date, the Insurance Commissioners will extend the date by which persons who have not joined approved societies become Post Office contributors beyond 15th October?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: There is still more than two months in which an insured person can join an approved society without becoming a deposit contributor, and I see no reason for extending the period which was recommended by the Advisory Committee.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is extremely unlikely that persons who are in doubt whether they will come under the Act or not will obtain any decision by 15th October?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Oh, yes, I think the overwhelming number will obtain decisions before two months are over.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, if any questions are referred to the Courts, there is bound to be some delay, as the Courts will not be sitting for two months?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any questions that will have to be decided by the Courts.

    FARMERS' SERVANTS (SICK BENEFITS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether a farmers' defence league has been formed in Berkshire and the adjoining counties, which includes many thousands of adherents who are pledged to decline to work the National Insurance Act in its present form; and whether the Government proposes to amend those provisions of the Act under which farmers are taxed without, in their opinion, any adequate return?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24th July. Farmers are not "taxed" by the National Insurance Act, but pay contributions to the National Insurance Fund for the sick benefits of their employés.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the Government will consider the feelings and opinions of the farmers on the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think if the farmers are left alone they will be all right.

    IRISH PROVIDENT ASSURANCE, LIMITED.
    Sir WALTER NUGENTasked whether the National Standard Insurance Company, the Law and Integrity Insurance Company, and the City and County Assurance Company have been approved of by the Insurance Commissioners for England; and if, before such approval was given, inquiry was made as to the connection of those companies with Irish Provident Assurance, Limited, which latter company was founded by H. C. Norman, who is managing director of the National Standard and of the Law and Integrity companies?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The National Standard Insurance Company, the Law and Integrity Insurance Company, and the City and County Assurance Company have not been approved by the Insurance Commissioners for England. A new society under the name of the National Standard Law Integrity City County and General Insurance Society has been approved by the Joint Committee. At the time of approval the Commissioners had no knowledge of any connection between this society and the Irish Provident Assurance, Limited, but inquiries on the subject have subsequently been instituted.

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to informing the public more fully as

    2665
    to some of the complicated details of the National Insurance Act, he will arrange to publish the Questions addressed to him and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, together with the Answers thereto?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In view of the many requests that have reached me during the past few days, I am arranging for the Questions and Answers on the Insurance Act to be separately printed.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will delete the fairly large number of simple and useless questions which have been asked?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure whether there is any precedent for printing questions and answers on any subject and selecting from them. I think I shall have to publish them altogether or not publish them at all.
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman commence by deleting the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The questions of the hon. Member for Pontefract are always very much to the point.

    ST. THOMAS COLLAR FACTORY, EXETER.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the owners of the St. Thomas Collar Factory, Exeter, where the workgirls, since the National Insurance Act came into operation, are being charged 1½d. per week in addition to their contributions under the Act; whether this action of the firm in question in making the girls pay one-half of the employer's contribution in addition to their own is a violation of the terms and intention of the Act; and whether he proposes taking any steps to penalise actions of this kind or to seek fresh powers to enable him to do so?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have given instructions for an inspector to visit the factory and investigate the case.

    CHARWOMEN.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has seen a letter sent to the hon. Member for North Islington by Mrs. Amelia Herbert, a charwoman, of Lymington Avenue, Wood Green, N., who states that she has earned just enough, week by week, to keep herself and bring
    2666
    up her two children without being dependent on anyone; that she has been employed by one family for eleven years, by another for nine years, and another for four years; that, owing to the National Insurance Act, two of her employers have discharged her, and another is thinking of doing so; and that the loss of employment means two and a-half days' loss of pay each week; is he aware that this case is typical of many others where respectable and hard-working persons are suffering hardship and distress on account of the Act; and can he point to any remedy or practical means of relieving it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman has sent me the letter referred to. I have not been able to investigate the facts. Cases of disturbance unfortunately accompany the bringing into operation of all new social legislation. Such disturbance may be due to the operation of an Act or (more frequently) to misunderstanding or misrepresentation concerning its operation. I have no reason to believe that the demand for the work of charwomen will be in any way reduced owing to national insurance.

    REGULATIONS AXD LEAFLETS.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether it is the intention of the Joint Committee of the Insurance Commission to issue the whole of the Regulations and the leaflets, separately bound and indexed, to the officers of approved societies to enable them to administer their societies in accordance with the wishes of the Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Most of the Regulations are now draft or provisional. When they become substantive I will consider the question of having them printed and published together and also of consolidating them. Copies of all the leaflets and of the Regulations which affect their business have been sent to all approved societies, in addition to explanatory circulars and memoranda; and these should afford a sufficient guide to them in their work under the Act.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS (MARRIED WOMEN).
    Colonel BURNasked whether a married woman who is in business on her own account in order to keep the house going, owing to the disablement of her husband, is prohibited from becoming a voluntary contributor; and, if so, whether it is proposed to issue any Regulations

    2667
    permitting a married woman in such circumstances to become a voluntary contributor?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A married woman (not insured under the Act before her marriage) cannot become a voluntary contributor, and the Insurance Commissioners have no power to issue Regulations providing otherwise.

    PEAMOUNT SANATORIUM, DUBLIN.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been directed to the fact that the medical officer at Dundalk has refused to recommend to the board of guardians that a patient suffering from tuberculosis be sent to the Peamount Sanatorium under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, because under present arrangements it was proposed to crowd eighty patients into a space sufficient only for twenty; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such overcrowding?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The buildings in course of construction at Peamount were carefully examined last week by one of the Local Government Board's inspectors. His report shows that the statement made in the question is absolutely without foundation. The person who made the statement at Dundalk, having been asked on what authority it was made, replied that it was based on something he had seen in a newspaper. All the arrangements at Peamount have been planned and are being carried out in accordance with the most up-to-date and approved methods of sanatorium treatment. The sanction of the Local Government Board will continue to be required to the various forms of equipment.

PARLIAMENT ACT (MONEY BILLS).
Mr. CASSEL: I desire to take your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which arises out of an Amendment which I moved on Friday in Committee on the Finance Bill. The Government admitted that it would have the effect of remedying a real grievance, but they had a doubt whether it would have the effect of preventing it from being a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act. The question I desire to ask is whether any, and, if so, what steps can be taken to ascertain whether an Amendment, if inserted in the Finance Bill, will have the effect of preventing a Finance Bill being
2668
a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, and whether it will be competent for an hon. Member to ascertain from Mr. Speaker his view on the question whether an Amendment will have that effect or not?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: May I also point out that it would have the effect of reducing the charge upon the subject. The Government were prepared to accept the Amendment so long as it would not put the Finance Bill out of the category of Money Bills. The Government were prepared to go a step further as there are other grievances of the same kind which we also propose to remedy at the same time. They would also have the effect of reducing the charge on the subject.
Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a very satisfactory reply at present. He will see that several difficulties arise. First of all, my opinion is asked about matters which occupied the attention of the House in Committee. That in itself would be rather an objectionable, difficult and novel practice. Secondly, my duty under the Parliament Act is to consider a Bill as a whole when it is completed, and I think it would be undesirable for me to give opinions while a Bill is still in an inchoate stage. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman will remember that I have to consult my two coadjutors on the matter, and considerable difficulty might arise if whenever I was asked a question with regard to a possible Amendment of a Bill I had immediately to summon my coadjutors and take their advice. I am afraid, therefore, it would be an inconvenient practice to take my opinion beforehand as to whether, if a particular Amendment were inserted in a Bill, it would or would not alter the character of what might be a Money Bill. On the other hand I am quite prepared to give hon. Members who seek my advice privately the best assistance I can, whether a Member of the Opposition or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anyone who is in charge of the Bill. If they approach me under those circumstances, I will certainly give, my very best attention to the matter and my assistance and advice, but I do not think I ought to go further than that.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Under those circumstances will the Chancellor of the Exchequer not take his courage in both hands, remedy the grievance and let the Parliament Act go?

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Third Heading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS).
  Mr. FELL: I take this opportunity of referring very shortly to the question of the payment of salaries to Members of this House. We have not hitherto had an opportunity this year of discussing the subject. It was my desire to take the opportunity of discussing the matter on an Amendment in Committee. It seems, however, that it is impossible to move a reduction of the amount taken by the Appropriation Bill in respect of salaries to Members, and so I was prevented from moving an Amendment. It appears that the amount required for that purpose is included among other sums for the Army and Navy, and while there were some Members who were willing to vote against these salaries, they were unwilling to vote for an Amendment to reduce the sum in respect of other services. Under these circumstances we could not divide upon the matter. I am afraid we shall on the present occasion be in a somewhat similar position, because hon. Members will not be able to vote against the Third Reading, there being many subjects included in the Bill for which they desire to vote. I can assure the Prime Minister that there is a very deep feeling among Members on this side of the House against payment of Members, which was brought about solely by Resolution, and which has been continued by Resolution. We have had no opportunity of discussing the question.
  I venture to say that there are anomalies in regard to payment of Members, and that the matter ought to receive some discussion. Possibly we might have Rules framed which would be advantageous. We have had no opportunity of doing so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not know that any anomalies existed. I think I can point out some. We do not know on what conditions payment of Members is based. We suppose the salary is paid equally to all Members, but we have nothing to show it. We do not know the amount of money which has been voted and not drawn by
  2696
  certain Members, and which, I suppose, will fall into the Consolidated Fund for the reduction of the National Debt. We do not know whether the Estimates for next year will be based upon the amount paid in the previous year. I understand that the Estimates are framed in regard to other salaries so as to include only what was paid in the previous year. I presume the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not include in the Estimates enough to pay the whole of the Members, but only enough to pay those who have taken their salaries. Another anomaly is in regard to the date from which the salary runs. We have ascertained by means of question and answer that the date from which it runs is the date on which notification of the return of the Member is received by the House, and that it does not depend upon whether he takes the oath and his seat. It is perfectly possible for a Member to receive the salary without taking the oath which Members are required to take. That appears to me to be a very considerable anomaly. It is certainly an anomaly which I do not think exists in any other Chamber. Another anomaly is this: I believe this is the only country in which Members of the Lower House receive salaries while Members of the Upper House do not. That matter has never been discussed. In all the other countries in the world where Members are paid Members of the Upper House receive payment, and, I believe, larger payment than Members of the Lower House. I do not say whether it should be done in this case or not, but I do say that it is a matter which should have been discussed. I have pointed out three or four anomalies, and I think these matters can only be settled by some Bill which should be brought in.
  On the main question whether it is desirable and in the interest of the House, the country, and Members themselves personally, to pay Members, many of us hold very strong opinions indeed. We think this system has discredited us among ourselves here. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] We think so. Many of us see signs that Members of the House vote this way or that way in consideration of the fact that they receive salaries. You will find it referred to continually that when so-and-so Division took place the Members, having regard to their salaries, voted this way or that way. That is an extremely objectionable thing. I object to it, and I believe the larger number of Members on this side of the House object

  2697
  to it. Another question is whether we are not discredited in the country too. I am convinced that we are, and that you can see signs of it not only in the daily, but in the weekly and comic papers. In every one of these papers they do not speak of us as they used to do. They say we are now salaried Members, and they treat us totally differently from what they used to do. In a large number of the constituencies also we are discredited. We do not hold the position we used to hold among them either. When we go to address meetings we have thrown in our teeth that we are salaried Members now, and we are open to observations to which, until three years ago, we were not subjected. I say that the Government has brought down the credit of this country to the lowest ebb it has reached in the last twenty years, and that it has also brought down the credit of the House to the lowest ebb it has ever reached.

  ARMY MOBILISATION.
  4.0 P.M.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I wish to say a few words about the mobilisation of the Army. [Laughter.] That may be a matter to laugh at by hon. Members opposite, but I feel that the Secretary of State for War will know that any remarks I have to make on that subject are not made in any party spirit, but only for the purpose of trying to do some good. It is a painful fact, comparing our Army with those of Continental countries, that whereas we would take from three to four days to mobilise, they take only from three to six hours. It is easy to understand that a regiment can be mobilised more quickly on the Continent, where the regiment gets its reserves from the country surrounding the particular place where the regiment is, because these regiments are always kept in their territorial districts and the men who form the reserves in them live in those districts; and it is more difficult to mobilise under our system, by which troops move continually from one place to another and are very seldom in their own territorial basis. I understand that what obtains with us is this: When an order for mobilisation is given, the Reserve men go to their depot. They do not go at once to their regiments. I suggest that it would simplify matters very much and save a great deal of time if it could be arranged that men should go straight to their regiments instead of going first to their
  2698
  depots, and having two journeys instead of one. I understand that the railway warrants to take those men to their depots are usually in possession of the men, and it might be objected that when the regiment is moved these warrants would have to be altered, but this could be easily got over. The place of destination on the warrant could be left open, and the men could be informed when the regiment is moved. All those warrants could be put through the post to the particular depot and altered there when the regiment is moved. If these Reserve men were sent straight to their regiments, instead of to the depot, at least one day would be saved on mobilisation. There might be some question raised as regards expense, but the only difference would be that you would have to keep the clothing and equipments of the men with the headquarters of the regiment, instead of at the depot, and that might entail the building of mobilisation stores at the headquarters of the regiment, so that there might be certain expense in moving those particular stores when the headquarters of the regiment are moved from one station to another. I do not imagine the expense would be very great. At any rate, if the expense was to some extent greater, the efficiency of the Service would be so much improved as to be worth the money.
  One most pressing point with regard to mobilisation of the Army is the question of horses. I understand that the Regular Cavalry and Artillery are at the present time ready for mobilisation, and that they have their quota of horses, but the difficulty lies in finding light draft horses for the Territorial Artillery. Owing to the increase in motor traction light transport horses are practically leaving the country and are not being bred. I imagine that foreign countries suffer even greater difficulties than we in finding these light draft horses, because motor traction is increasing on the Continent just as it is here, and they want a much larger number of horses than we do, and are coming here to England and Ireland trying to buy our mares and taking them away. It is quite necessary that we should take some steps to keep these mares and breed this particular sort of horse in this country. I would suggest that the Secretary of State instead of buying horses of four and five years old, or the few horses that he now buys at three years old, he should buy at two years old all good fillies who would be suitable for breeding this particular class of horse, and leave those

  2699
  fillies with the farmers who owned them, paying a proportion of the price which was to be paid on eventually taking them over. Those farmers would be able to breed one or two foals from those mares before five years of age, and then at five yeans of age they might be taken over for work, and when finished their work they might be returned to the farmers. The point is that if a young mare breeds at two or three years of age and up to five years and has foals then she is much more likely, when her period of service is over and she has finished her work, to breed after twelve or fourteen years of age than she would be if she has not already bred at an early age. If some arrangement of that sort were come to to encourage the farmers to keep the mares in the country it would be doing a great service to the Army. I understand as regards the Territorial Army that on mobilisation all they have to hope for in their Artillery are very heavy draft horses, which are not looked upon as suitable for Artillery horses. This is simply because the light draft horse are so scarce in the country that they would not be available, as they would be all taken up by the Regular Artillery. The Territorial Artillery would be very much handicapped in operating against a foreign enemy if they only had very heavy horses, and it would not be fair to ask them with such horses to compete against foreign Artillery.
  This consideration accentuates what I have been saying as to the necessity of taking some steps in order to keep the mares of that particular class in this country. As regards the horses of the Yeomanry regiments, I am told there are only a very few regiments in which the horses are actually owned by the troopers themselves. Such regiments as the Durham Scouts and probably the Scottish Horse and, I think, the Shropshire Yeomanry are the only regiments I have heard of in which anything like a fair proportion of the horses belong to the men. What happens every year when these regiments go out for training is they get their horses by contract with certain dealers who hire out the horses. At the end of the training of a particular regiment those horses are used again, and it may be that they are used for three, four or five other regiments. No particular regiment has any hold over those horses, and on mobilisation, if any particular regiment wanted any of those horses, there would be a scramble for them. I understand
  2700
  that the Secretary of State has improved very much in efficiency the registration of horses. He will agree with me that it is very far from being perfect. Anybody who lives in the country knows how very imperfect this registration is yet. As I understand, the adjutants of Territorial regiments and of Yeomanry go about finding out all the horses there are and registering these particular horses, and then remount officers judge to whom these horses are to be allotted on mobilisation. I submit that it would be very difficult to trace these horses. There is nothing to stop a man who has five or six horses down on the remount officers' books from selling those horses, or selling any particular horse of those which are described in the books, and therefore at the time of mobilisation it might very well happen when the authority, whoever they are, go for these particular horses they will not find them there, but they will find a very inferior class of horse instead of the good ones which they expect to see. You cannot get these things done perfectly without spending money, and if this is forth doing at all it is worth doing well.
  The only possible way of getting people to keep horses as registered and ready to turn out on mobilisation is to give them some retaining fee, with the understanding that they would be bound to find these particular horses for that retaining fee when the time comes. Suppose you want something like 60,000 horses to complete your mobilisation and if you paid £5 a horse as a retaining fee, so that the man would be bound to have that particular class of horse when the time came, it would only cost £300,000, which is not a very large sum to add to the £26,000,000 or £27,000,000 on the Estimates; and if for that £300,000 you could ensure a certainty of getting the horses in an efficient condition on mobilisation it would be worth it. In reference to the National Reserve, I asked the right hon. Gentleman a few questions on this subject last week, and did not get what I thought a very satisfactory answer. In effect, at present in the National Reserve the names are only taken down. There is no obligation on the man to serve at all. The name is simply taken down, and that is all that is done, with the exception of a shilling being paid for registration, and also that 10 per cent. of the men in a particular district get rifles so that they may go and practice when ranges are available. I do not see what good this force would be on mobilisation if you have

  2701
  got to wait for the crucial moment before you find out whether the man can work or not, or whether he is willing to do it. If this force is ever going to be of any good to us at the time of need—and that time will come quickly if it ever comes at all—everything ought to be ready beforehand, and they ought to know how many men will be fit and willing to serve in the ranks as soldiers, to serve in the transport, in the telegraphs, in the post office, the motor traction, and all other particular services which might be required. If those men were asked at present whether they would be willing to take such service we should find that their patriotism would not fall short of what we require.
  Then the Secretary for War told me last week that there was no arrangement whatever made as regards arms, equipment or clothing. Anybody who serves as a soldier must know that if the clothing is not ready and if the equipment is not ready, it takes a very long time to mobilise any important body of troops. It is absolutely necessary, in fact, if you are to have an efficient body of men, to have clothing, equipment, and arms ready for them. I would suggest that at the particular headquarters of regiments, arms, clothing, and equipment should be ready for times of mobilisation. It has been represented to me by people who take a great interest in this particular service that the men do not want money, but that what they do want is some opportunity to meet together under the same roof, so that they may feel that they belong to the same regiment or something of that sort; and it has been suggested to me that if the Government grant a small amount, say, £2 or something like that per head—it would not amount to a great deal in the aggregate—it would do something in the way of providing headquarters for each particular regiment of men, and which could eventually be turned into clubs, where the men could meet and keep up their esprit de corps, and where you could provide storehouses for arms, equipment, and clothing. This would all tend to efficiency, and I think that if the Secretary of State consults those officers who are at the present moment serving him well in raising and organising this particular corps, he would find that the specal points which I wish him to carry out in order to make the service efficient, are those which I have mentioned.
  Colonel BURN: I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War in his place, and I should like very much some information as to mobilisation in the event of the order being given for it. I think it behoves us to see how we stand as regards other foreign, nations. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite may laugh at mobilisation, but we think that rapid mobilisation is the most important point in modern strategy. We have seen in the past, when the Rhine was crossed in 1870, or, in 1877, when the Danube was crossed, and when the passes of the Pyrenees were seized by the French, and British ships held the ports, how delay in mobilisation meant ruin. I very much doubt if the arrangements for transport on mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force overseas were as complete or anything like as complete in the year 1911 as they were relatively complete in 1811. I say relatively. The right hon. Gentleman laughs. I think if he looks into it he will remember that between 1805 and 1815 we could send Expeditionary Forces from the Himalayas to Charlestown or from Java to Cadiz, and now we find the greatest difficulty in mobolising six divisions, despite the fact that we have a population of 44,000,000 or 45,000,000, and notwithstanding all the magnificent progress we have made in mechanical and industrial arts, and also in steam. What does mobilisation mean? Mobilisation means the passing of our armed forces from a peace footing to a war footing, and mobilisation of the unit means its being complete in personnel, horses, and everything that pertains to war. I should like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, who is much interested in the Yeomanry Force, and who has large experience of that force in fact, as to when the Imperial Yeomanry would be complete in horses on the order for mobilisation being given. I should like to know whether our Special Reserve would be mobilised. I speak of the Infantry alone, and I do not take into consideration the necessary supply of horses, guns and ammunition. In the scheme of defence of these Islands, as laid down by the Secretary for War, to meet a foreign enemy attacking this country, if it is to be successful, we must be able to mobilise and concentrate in a central position, ready to radiate to any threatened quarter or direction and at the same time threaten the flanks of the enemy.
  For mobilisation, secrecy and celerity mean everything. The success of Lee and

  2703
  Jackson in the American War may certainly be put down to this. Now that it is possible—and we know it is possible—that mobilisation may be ordered, we desire to be assured that our house is in order. Those of us who have had experience of mobilisation know what it means—chaos, confusion, hurry, worry and scurry; that is the state of affairs in this country—that has been our past experience. Surely we may hope for better things. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, and we do hope for better things. We have the experience of foreign Powers, and we know what they can do. When war was declared between France and Germany on 15th July, 1870, in sixteen days the Germans mobilised 1,000,000 men, 2,000 guns, and 130,000 horses. More recently we have seen that Russia moved to Korea by the Trans-Siberian Railway 1,100,000 men, 1,600 guns, and 260,000 horses. The most important thing we have to tackle in these days is the horse supply. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied with the state of affairs in regard to that in the event of an order for mobilisation being given. We know that the horses have been registered with the assistance of the police. The police are very excellent men, they do their duty admirably, and we have nothing but praise for them, but I do not think that the police are really judges of horses, and unless this horse supply is undertaken in a thorough and practical way we shall find ourselves wanting when the time comes. What I want to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to have a census made of horses. That is the first point for decision. We want to know where we stand; we want to know, in event of foreign complications, what horses we have got in this country and what, are our resources.
  As the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Hickman) mentioned, one class of horse on which we depended very much has disappeared owing to motor traction. It is not an easy matter to collect a number of horses in this country, nor can it be done without proper organisation in time of peace, so that there shall be no rush and scurry when war is declared. What we must have is a census of horses in this country, and we also want a thorough classification of the horses so that they may be apportioned to each arm—Cavalry, Artillery, and Mounted Infantry. When that is done we shall then
  2704
  be in a better state, but that cannot be accomplished without extra organisation. I urge the right hon. Gentleman for the welfare of the Army to appoint remount officers to visit the horse-producing counties and districts of the country. They should be given power to make lists of horses that are available, or that are likely to be available within the next year, and this must be repeated from year to year, so that we may have horses fit for work and available in time of war. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an easy task. You may go over stables and stables, and what percentage of horses do you imagine you would get out of those stables fit to go into active service? We all know what happens with horses that are not fit. They go to the front and crack up in a very short time, so that they only hamper an Expeditionary Force. If a proper classification were made, I think it would be more possible to provide the necessary horses for the Army on the order for mobilisation. If our Army were mobilised in that way, we should want, to complete the Cavalry, and batteries, and to bring the regiments up to war strength, something like 44,000 or 45,000 horses.
  If we are to mount the Territorial Force, which is absolutely necessary, we should want not less than 80,000 or 90,000 horses; that is to say, on the outbreak of war you have to provide 136,000 horses. At the end of a fortnight you would have to supply a percentage—say 20 per cent., that is 26,000—in order to replace casualties. That, I maintain, is absolutely necessary, and in order to get a total of 156,000 or 160,000 horses, you would have weeks and months of hard work on the part of the officers apportioned to the various districts, because you will find that of the horses which are examined by competent officers, not more than 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of all the horses available would be actually fit to go on active service. The only thing is to know what horses we have got available, and what are likely to be available at the time of war. All that is not easy of accomplishment, but if it be done thoroughly, everything will go easily and smoothly on mobilisation. We must have all these points settled and arranged beforehand. We must have our census taken; we must have our collecting stations near the railway, so that horses may be moved to the places of mobilisation with the least loss of time and the greatest ease. All those places of mobilisation must be set down.

  2705
  What we want more than anything else in this country is that greater responsibility should be given to general officers commanding, so that they should not have to write and wire to the War Office to answer every single question, but that they should be able to act on their own responsibility, a responsibility which any general officer would be ready and willing to accept. I think that this horse question is a very serious one, and needs the special attention of the right hon. Gentleman, who I hope in his reply will not roll off a string of figures and tell us that all is well.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I desire to say that I cannot roll off a string of figures, because it is only ten minutes ago that I received notice of this Debate. I am very sorry to cause inconvenience to hon. Members, but until then I had received no notice whatever of this Debate, and I am unable to give any figures.
  Colonel BURN: I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give his figures on the spur of the moment. What I do ask is that he should give his close attention to this matter because I fully realise the great importance of it, and I am sure that everyone who knows the condition of the Service in this country will back me up, and I am perfectly certain that I have the whole of the Army at my back when I say that this is a difficulty which has got to be met. There is another matter, and that is that on the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force twelve companies of Mounted Infantry have to be created as "Divisional Cavalry"—one company of Mounted Infantry being equal to a squadron of Cavalry. We have also to create three battalions of Mounted Infantry (nine companies) to help to form two "Mounted Brigades" with three available Cavalry regiments. This makes twenty - one companies of Mounted Tnfantry, and to form the Mounted Infantry you take the best men from the Line battalions. Anyone who has soldiered knows what a loss that is to any regiment. There is a scheme which I think might possibly help matters, and that is if you were to bring three, if not four, of the Cavalry regiments which are now in South Africa back to this country; that would ease very much the drain on the Infantry regiments in order to form Mounted Infantry battalions. When things have settled down in South Africa I do not
  2706
  know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers it is absolutely vital that four of our Cavalry regiments should be kept out there. At any rate that is a consideration which he can think over, and surely if it is possible to bring them home it will be a distinct advantage in the event of the forces having to be mobilised for war.
  If we could have, as I say, a little more decentralisation, a little less red tape, a little less of the War Office in our Army, if we would allow the general officers to lay down the principles of their own particular command, to be approved of by the War Office, and to be left to carry out on the order being given for mobilisation. I think that would be a great advantage to the Army and to the country generally. Coming back to the Germans we know that the first German Army Corps which is now at Konigsberg, can mobilise in every detail in three days, and that the French 18th Army Corps now at Bordeaux, can mobilise in two and a half days. I should very much like to know if we consider that our Army Corps would be able to mobolise in anything like that time. There used to be in the Army Book a scheme for mobilisation. I have seen it, but I do not think it any longer appears there. That scheme was a complicated one, but it was perhaps a good thing as it showed that a scheme had really been worked out with some possibility of it being put into operation in the event of war. All the orders for mobilisation should be laid down beforehand. Celerity is of all things the most essential, and all the orders should be simple, clear, and unmistakeable. I have seen the 1912 edition of the Regulations for Mobilisation, and I confess that the explanation of the terms used and the preparatory measures are in almost as puzzling language as if they were Clauses of the Insurance Act.
  This is no party question. All things appertaining to the Army and the Navy should be lifted out of party conflict. It is for the good of our country and all sections should join hands for the benefit of this country and our Empire. I am sure that I myself, and all of us who sit on these benches, would willingly co-operate in any possible way in order to make things easier and simpler in time of war: that is to say, as regards registration of horses in our own districts, the classification of them, and giving to those officers in charge of the different districts every help and assistance that lies in our power.

  2707
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think over these remarks I have made and will really take them to heart and see what can be done in order to ensure this country being mobilised in the quickest possible time and being able to compete with foreign nations. I do not desire the slavish imitation of one Power that has been mentioned by speakers on both sides, and by more than one of the Front Bench speakers; but I say if we see other Powers in Europe whose plans are good, and who are able to carry out mobilisation and preparations for war, in the quickest possible time, then let us copy out of their scheme what is good. I think that must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and, at any rate, let us hope that he will consider these matters and give us some assurance that the preparations for mobilisation in this country shall be put on a sound and practical basis.
  Sir CHARLES HUNTER: It is a very difficult matter really to know what is to be done in the case of mobilisation as recorded on paper, because it is only in war time, or on the prospect of the outbreak of war, one really begins to see how those schemes which appear, on paper, work. We have done it in the case of a brigade or division, but beyond that we have very rarely proceeded in our mobilisation scheme. In war time it would, of course, be necessary that every man, every gun, every horse, and all the impedimenta connected with modern armies, should be accumulated and ready to be put in working order. Last, but not least, we must recollect that we must have proper staff officers. I especially drew the attention of the late Secretary of State for War to the shortage of staff officers in the whole of the Territorial Force. I addressed a question to him as to the number of staff officers that would be available in the Territorial Force on mobilisation. The answer was that the number would be that usual on mobilisation in every Regular Division of the Army, and he told me that in every division of the Army they had six aides-de-camps and eleven staff officers, making seventeen in all, and that the Territorial Force in its present state had six staff officers in a division. I referred to the Army List to see who they were, and I presume the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the Army List is efficient. I found those six staff officers, and the only ones available, consisted of a second-rate staff officer, and
  2708
  they included two brigade majors, whom you cannot really include as divisional staff officers, because they are concerned with administration and training. The only other two were the sanitary officer and the medical officer. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman includes the medical officer and the sanitary officer as staff officers. There is no other army in existence where the medical officer and the sanitary officer are included in a proper staff.
  When we consider that the Germans have eighteen staff officers and the French have seventeen staff officers for every division, it stands to reason that if ever there was a force that really requires more staff officers it is the Territorial Force, and it is undoubtedly in the Territorial Force that that deficiency is more pronounced than in any other. I also asked the right hon. Gentleman when he became Secretary of State for War the number of staff officers available for the Territorial Force. He told me that it was impossible for him to state exactly what number there were, but the number would be made up from the Reserve of Officers. The Reserve of Officers are not men qualified to take staff officer-ships. They have been out of the work for a long time, and in modern war, if it should come, it is a very scientific business, and you must have the most highly scientific trained men at your disposal. Moreover, I can see no earthly use in making these absurd statements in this House in answer to questions about staff officers, including medical officers and sanitary officers. That may deceive a few people who are not interested in Army matters, but it only becomes a laughing-stock to every regiment in the British Army, and it does not deceive for one moment the hon. and gallant officers who have served in the Army, and most of them with staff appointments for a number of years. I only hope that the Secretary of State, in his answer, will give the country some definite statement as to where the six staff officers are to come from. We want men who are highly trained, and neither the late Secretary of State nor the present Secretary of State has yet been able to give any definite statement as to where they are to come from.
  Mr. AMERY: I wish to support my hon. and gallant Friends in drawing the attention of the House to the great importance of this question of mobilisation. I do not wish to say anything about the question

  2709
  of the adequacy of our forces for the strategical needs of this country. I shall simply take the forces which we profess to put into the field in time of war, and ask whether at the outset of war you could put them into the field in a condition fit to fight and march, for that is what mobilisation means. Let me take first of all the question of the Expeditionary Force of six Divisions. Can we put those Divisions into the field in a state of readiness to march and fight at all comparable to the state of readiness of the Continental army we might possibly have to encounter? Let me remind the House of what mobilisation means in the case of an army like the German army. It means that you discard the youngest recruits, you call up the men who have just left the Service, in the last two years, and you have an absolutely homogeneous body of men between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-four or twenty-five who come from the same villages, who have been neighbours and schoolfellows together, and who have served in the ranks and know each other thoroughly, and who are in the prime of life. Those men come directly under the non-commissioned officers and officers who trained them in the last two years. The need of extra officers and expansion is met by an arrangement under which places are filled up by men who served in the ranks of the particular regiment for a certain time, and who are selected by the officers and who have gone through special training with those officers. The result is that you have an absolutely homogeneous body of men, among whom there is not a single stranger and not a single man, at any rate in the ranks, five years older than another.
  Compare what we have got. We go into the field first of all with a grave shortage of officers. There is, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a very grave shortage of staff officers to begin with, and there is a very grave shortage of officers in the ordinary ranks. We propose to meet these deficiencies by all sorts of expedients. You call up seven hundred non-commissioned officers, thereby weakening the corps of non-commissioned officers, on whom so much depends, on the very occasion when they are most wanted. You call up raw cadets from the military colleges. You call up young men who have certificates of the Officers Training Corps. You throw all these people together in the field and you ask them to work together and to go into a great battle within a period of time in which you would not permit a team of foot-
  2710
  ballers, however good to begin with, to play a match together. The worst might be mitigated if your men were an absolutely homogeneous body. But of what will your men be composed, when you go into action in the first fortnight or so of war? You take 37 per cent. or 40 per cent.—in many battalions it is much less—of young soldiers who have been with you for a year or more, and who know their training, and who, at any rate, may be classed as up-to-date soldiers. You add the Reservists, of whom the best, it is true, have only just left the Service and are trained, but who are separated by at least five years from service in that battalion, who know practically none of the men, and very few of the non-commissioned officers or even of the officers. That is at the best. But among the Reservists there are an immense number who have left the Army from anything from five to thirteen years, and who are anything from ten to twenty years older than the men with whom they will serve shoulder to shoulder. Of our 106,000 Reservists, 52,000 are over thirty-two years of age. You cannot by any stretch of language call that a homogeneous body. I have no doubt whatever that if you gave them six or eight weeks they would shake together and be ready to meet anybody. But you are not going to be given six weeks. You may have to take a force like that into the field in the first fortnight of war, and it is not fair, either to the officers or to the men, that that should be. Imagine the plight of a boy fresh from Woolwich put in command of a section of men, three-fourths of whom have not seen the rifle or anything of the recent training of the Army, and another one-fourth of young soldiers who have never seen him—a body of people entirely strange to each other, for a great part entirely strange to the work they have to do, and you ask them to face death within a fortnight of coming together!
  Then there is the very serious question of horses. An Army is not mobilised unless it can move, and it cannot move, at any rate so far as Cavalry and Artillery are concerned, unless it is provided with horses. There, again, let me remind the House of what mobilisation means with nations on the Continent. They are prepared in the first place to spend large sums of money on breeding horses themselves, and in giving bounties and gratuities to farmers and others to breed horses of the requisite stamp. They keep a large staff

  2711
  of qualified experts going round the country continuously registering and classifying. They provide by law that when the order for mobilisation is given every owner of a qualified horse has himself to bring that horse in to the local centre, where the horses are examined and drafted off to the units. There you have a means by which, in a day or two, the largest army in the world can be properly equipped with its horses. We have a much smaller Army; we have prided ourselves on being the first horse-breeding nation in the world; and yet we have no adequate arrangements, and we do not even attempt to spend the necessary money for this purpose. We had the experience of the South African war, when more than 400,000 horses were killed off simply because we had not fit horses to begin with, and millions of money were spent. You had in 1910 a census of horses in general, carried out by the police, but you had no real classification as to the fitness of those horses for the particular purpose for which they are wanted. Last year we had an emergency classification by Territorial adjutants. I wonder how many of those Territorial adjutants were really capable of making such a classification, and what that classification is worth? What we require, and what we have not got, is a really efficient staff of experts to keep up a continuous classification and reclassification of the horses in this country. We want to spend money to see that farmers can provide the necessary horses, and we ought to have a provision in the Army Act by means of which, on the outbreak of war, on the publication of the mobilisation notices, every owner of such a horse would at once bring it to the nearest local centre.
  This is a very big problem. We require, on mobilisation, 44,000 horses for the Expeditionary Forse, 18,000 for the Regular soldiers left behind in this country, and 80,000 or 90,000 for the Territorials, or about 150,000 horses altogether; and we shall want 30,000 every fortnight to keep them going. So much for the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force. Then there is the question of the force left behind. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken more than once of the 410,000 men left behind in this country who are going to eat up any invaders. But no army can eat up an invader unless it is mobilised. I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a phrase in a Memorandum by
  2712
  his predecessor in February, 1907. The then Secretary of State for War, when he was still fresh to his work, said:—
  "The contemplation of large numbers by the people of this country, who are unable to take into account questions of war efficiency and war organisation, necessarily promotes dangerous national illusions."
  I think that the illusion about these 410,000 men is a very dangerous one. A large part of the 410,000 is composed of inefficient recruits and boys, and another large part of people whom we are already reckoning in the drafts who may have to be sent abroad in the first few weeks of war. Whatever the numbers are, those numbers must be efficient to play their proper part in the defence of this country. I quote again the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Lord Haldane, in dwelling on the organisation of the Territorial Force, pointed out that that force is
  "designed to enable the Regular Army and the Navy to operate with greater freedom at a distance from these shores in places where the defence of British interests may require them."
  Does not that imply that the force left behind must be able to take the field efficiently in this country to meet an invader? Yet, what is the condition either of the Regular Force or of the Special Reserve left behind or of the Territorials? With regard to the Regular Force and Special Reserve, you have a handful of officers left with a certain number of men of the Special Reserve, a certain number of recruits and immature boys of the Regulars, and a certain number of Section D Reserve. You have a handful of officers who will have to cope with 1,000 or 1,500 men, with practically no non-commissioned officers. Can it be said that that is a suitable force to prepare recruits and drafts, and at the same time to undertake the task of defending this country? Are the Territorials likely to be able to take the field if their adjutants are going to be scurrying about finding horses for the Regulars and fighting other Territorial adjutants for the division of those useful remounts which are to serve three or four battalions in succession? How are they likely to be ready to take the field within the first few weeks of war? Even if you imagine that there are no necessary deductions to be made for your naval garrisons, for coast defence, for Ireland and Scotland—which will leave you less than 100,000 men fit to take the field and march—will not a force of that sort, once engaged in marching and counter-marching, with a really well-organised opponent, on the point of contact be reduced to one-half, one-fourth,

  2713
  or one-tenth of its nominal strength? As far as I can make out, the 410,000 men left in the country on the outbreak of war would be in precisely the same condition as the 450,000 whom we had in this country after the South African war had been going on for a few months—a force which everybody at that time realised could not defend the country, and that at a time when the Navy had not a single call upon it in any other direction; a force which Lord Lansdowne, the then Secretary of State for War, described as being in no sense an Army fit to take the field. Surely we cannot consider that our mobilisation arrangements at this moment are in any sense adequate? Again, when you consider mobilisation, yon have not only to consider the immediate position; you have to consider the immense demand for officers, men, and horses which begin with the very first weeks of war. Lord Haldane, when he first laid down his scheme, said:—
  "Our investigations to date show that on mobilisation, including the numbers required to meet wastage for six months, nearly 3,500 officers and some 75,000 men will be required for the Special Contingent."
  To-day we have instead of 3,500 officers, 1,600, and instead of 75,000 men, 57,000, of whom barely 40,000 have had any training, or are of the very minimum age to enable them to take the field without breaking down. Moreover, Lord Haldane's calculations were made only as regards furnishing the Expeditionary Force. Since then we have been told that a considerable proportion of these drafts, 14,000 or 15,000, are to be sent to the Mediterranean or elsewhere with the Extra Special Reserve battalions. That reduces the drafting strength by 15,000, and it increases the requirements for drafts, by the fact that these regiments would also have to be supplied with drafts if they have to serve at all. These calculations have also left entirely out of account the fact that all your garrisons, and, above all, your forces in India, may require drafts. Is it likely that any opponent would go to war with us without making a determined effort to see that we had trouble elsewhere? Is it likely that those elements, which are at all times ready to think of the possibility of trouble, would not choose that precise moment in which to give us trouble? What with the hill tribes in India, or difficulties in Egypt, or the besieging of some Mediterranean garrison or some other contingency, all our forces oversea are likely to be requiring drafts
  2714
  at the same moment as the Expeditionary Force will require them; but we have not, as a matter of fact, got drafts enough to keep the Expeditionary Force for two months, if we had two or three serious battles at the outbreak of war.
  5.0. P.M.
  I suppose we shall be told that the Territorial Army is going to supply this particular requirement. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, in the Memorandum which I have already quoted, said that the Territorial Force was to exist for the "support and expansion" of the Expeditionary Force. What is to happen to home defence when that force goes abroad to "support and expand" the Expeditionary Force? We are simply faced here, as in so many cases, with the counting of men over and over again. We have a squadron at Gibraltar which is supposed to be in the Mediterranean and in the North Sea at the same critical moment. We have the Special Reserve counted over and over again; we have the Territorial remounts serving three or four battalions. Is it not time we did really think of the necessities of war, and ask ourselves what is going actually to happen at the outbreak of war, when men can only be in one place at a time and are seriously wanted there? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am speaking from any party point of view or in any captious spirit. I know that he has a great deal to attend to. I know he has to deal with the military system as he found it. I am not blaming him for the military system as it exists to-day. I am not trying to make any party point out of the matter. I wish in the time when hon. Gentlemen on this side were in power they had introduced the changes that I should like to see introduced; but I do think the time has come when we ought to leave all minor questions aside and really concentrate on this great problem of national military efficiency—a problem that has become all the more serious for this country now that we are so hard pressed at sea. I do not want, to repeat arguments which I used the other day, but I do feel that unless we can provide an adequate force for the home defence of this country and for a counter-stroke abroad, we shall have to face a problem of additional Naval Estimates of probably £30,000,000 or £40,000,000.
  The complaint I would like to make of those who sit on the opposite bench is the tendency which they show, instead of

  2715
  facing the situation, to try and find arguments by hook or by crook from soldiers against proposals made on this side. We have had Sir Ian Hamilton's book produced at the instigation of Lord Haldane. Now we have in the "Army Review" an extraordinary article produced by some officer—I think I happen to know who the officer is—in order to prove that the existing system for home defence is adequate and that it does in fact give you as large a force practically as any system of national service would give you at a far greater expense. I am not complaining of the fact that arguments are brought forward against national service. I hope they will be brought forward. This country has no right to embark upon any great experiment of the sort until the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out. But I do object to dishonest arguments brought forward under the auspices of the War Office in an article like the one I refer to. There is only one particular argument to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The article I refer to makes out that our present Territorial Force gives us very nearly the same strength as national service would. It makes it out in this way: It says that the proposal of the National Service League would give you a force of 400,000 men, 80,000 of whom are ear-marked as drafts for foreign service; therefore you have 320,000 men, or only 7,000 more than the establishment of the Territorial Force, and only 45,000 more than the present strength of the Territorial Force.
  That argument entirely omits to state, first of all, that the 400,000 men of the National Service League scheme do not include any men in their first year's training, and do not include the 150,000 of the first contingent; but do include men, every one of whom has had his four, five or six months' training, and is over nineteen years of age at least. It is a homogeneous force of men between nineteen and twenty-two, fully comparable in fact, apart from the length of training to a Continental army. The Territorial 275,000 men includes at most 150,000 men who come up even to the absurdly low standard of efficiency required of the Territorial Force. The article omits to say anything about the National Service officer as compared with the present Territorial officer. It also omits the fact that these 400,000 men under national service could be increased indefinitely by simply calling
  2716
  upon more years' contingents. The 400,000 men are made up of the first three contingents of men. If you call up the fourth contingent you will have 530,000 men; if you call up the fifth you will have over 650,000 men. If you call for contingents in the way that every Continental army does you will have very nearly two millions of men. It is monstrous to try to make out that the force you can get by calling upon the best picked manhood of your nation, who have had a regular training of four or six months, is in any way comparable to the force which you get under the present haphazard system. The officer who wrote this article never deigned to point out that the 80,000 men under the National Service League proposals, who will be assigned for overseas drafts, will be all men over nineteen years of age; every one of them with experience and training at least as good as that you give now to your Special Reserve; whereas the present Special Reserve are only nominally 60,000 strong, and would not actually be able to put more than 30,000 men in the field, comparable in any sense to the 80,000 of the National League proposals. These 80,000 men, by a little extra expenditure of money, could be increased indefinitely. I have never complained of opposition to the proposals of the National Service League. I do complain, as a matter of fact, of the use of political pressure and official favouritism at the War Office in order to induce officers, who know very much better than to write that sort of article, and the use of the influence of promotion and of officialdom in order to make officers of the Army from the highest quarters downwards try to pretend that they believe things that they do not believe. At least that is my experience of the officers I have met. It is time that we seriously faced the situation. Let us face it in a non-party spirit—but let us face it! Let us realise the great difficulties which are involved in the constitution of this Army, in the necessity of retaining a large force of voluntary soldiers for overseas defence; but, for Heaven's sake, do let us face it.
  Colonel YATE: I am not going to touch on questions which have been raised by my hon. Friends, but I want to put forward one or two practical points for the consideration of the Secretary of State for War in respect of the mobilisation of the Territorial Force and the National Reserve. I would like the Secretary of State to tell me what arrangements have been

  2717
  made by the Government to prevent a man who joins the Territorial Force losing his employment on mobilisation. I look on this as one of the most important points that we have to settle. Patriotic men who do enlist ought not to be worried about that aspect of the case. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take the question up, and take real steps to secure that men who join the Territorial Force shall have their appointments reserved for them on mobilisation. I have raised the question before, but I have never been able to get an answer. The greatest difficulty that the Territorial Force is suffering from at the present time, and would suffer from on mobilisation, is the want of officers. That difficulty is increasing, not decreasing, every day. What we require to get officers for the Territorial Force is to catch the boys on leaving school, but before you can catch the boys there are two difficulties to face. The first is that of expense, and the second that of the time that the young officer can give to the work. An officer, on joining the Territorial Force, is faced with an average expense of £50 for cost of uniform. The Government allows him only £20. If the Government wish to get officers for the Territorial Force they will have to raise the outfit allowance from £20 to £50. The only pay an officer gets is when in camp or at some course or school of instruction, and this rarely covers his mess bill If we want these officers to make our Territorial Force efficient on mobilisation I think we must give them increased allowances, for a company officer must also spend a certain amount on his company
  Again, as to the time an officer must give to his soldiering. It is unfortunately the fact that it is not the wealthy, leisured classes that we get to join the Territorial Force. I wish it was. As a rule it is the business man with his career before him, and only a limited amount of leisure at his disposal. This man has his own career to think about, and if he takes to soldiering he is necessarily debarred in a great measure from all other amusements, such as cricket, golf, etc., that young men like to have. The expense increases year by year, and the work is becoming more and more serious. The knowledge required by the officers to carry on their duties increases year by year. On joining there is, first of all, the month's "school," then all the various other courses an officer must pass to enable him to instruct his men. All this
  2718
  is followed by regimental and brigade tours, lectures, etc. In addition, there is the company training, range firing, camp, etc., so that the young officer's duties are almost continuous from one year's end to another. If things are not remedied the shortage of officers will go on, for busy men find it too much for them, and, I am sorry to say, many of them give it up. Poor men cannot afford to join the force because their expenses are not paid, and so the shortage goes on. The difficulties must be faced if we are to get the officers, and they must be properly paid, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not face the question and try to find some means to increase the pay, the outfit allowance, and so on.
  The same thing applies to the medical officers. I am told there is great difficulty now in finding these. Doctors cannot afford to give the short time their profession allows them for holiday to military duties, and men cannot be expected to sacrifice both business and pleasure without some quid pro quo. If there is to be no national service there must be an adequate inducement to serve. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he cannot discover some means to improve the conditions of the officers. I would suggest that lieutenant-colonels who take up the onerous duties of commanding battalions or units should be made J.P.'s, whilst, as an inducement to young officers to join, a more liberal outfit allowance should be given, say, £50, renewable every five years on condition of efficiency. These suggestions that I put forward, I believe, would go a long way to induce officers to join. Something must be done. It is necessary to be able to put before a youth some substantial advantages as the reward of service, and it should not be beyond the power of the Secretary of State to find that substantial inducement. As to the men, there is another suggestion I should like to make. I am glad to say that in Leicestershire, a portion of which county I have the honour to represent, the units in the county are practically full. Leicestershire has set a splendid example to other counties in this respect. This will continue, I hope, if the annual camps are made pleasant as well as useful. Where possible they should be held at the seaside. The great difficulty that has to be got over is the difficulty with the employers of labour in getting leave for the men for the second, and the most important, week in camp. Some inducement must be given

  2719
  or some acknowledgment made to employers to allow their men the second week's leave—for the second week's training is essential for the efficiency of the force. If employers are not to be compelled to let their men go, then they must be paid to let them go, and the country must boar the cost. These are all practical points. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman has considered them, but he has never told us what conclusion he has come to. I hope he will be able to give us some definite answer.
  It is no good saying there is extra cost. Whatever it is it must be faced. The men are short in numbers, and we must see if anything can be done to remedy it, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not shirk facing these questions. I may say here that I entirely disagree with the Financial Secretary to the War Office when he stated the other day that it never had been contemplated that the numbers of the Territorial Force should reach the fixed establishment of 315,000. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary said that that was a paper maximum, but I must protest against that; that number was fixed, and I do not think we could possibly accept the Financial Secretary's statement that it was a mere paper figure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith Burghs the other day said that the numbers ought to be raised to 500,000. In that I most cordially agree. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the necessity of compulsory training for boys from fourteen to seventeen years of age. Lord Haldane himself admitted this, and he stated it was a question for the President of the Board of Education, and I do trust the right hon. Gentleman the present War Secretary will follow in Lord Haldane's footsteps and will use his influence with the President of the Board of Education and initiate some system of national training, not only for the boys in the schools, but also for those who are not at school as well. I hope he will begin with Eton and Harrow and thus show that we are not going to put an extra burden upon the poor, but an extra duty upon the rich.
  There is one curious thing with reference to the National Reserve. I received a very valuable letter the other day from a former member of the Canadian North-West Frontier
  2720
  Police who served through the South African war. He writes to say he has just received the South African war bounty. He tells me he came to England and disposed of it for £250. "Truly a magnificent recognition," he says, "of services to the Empire from the patriotic Dominion of Canada." He goes on to say he would like me to tell Mr. Borden how much he would like to thank him for what the Canadian Government has done for the men who fought for the Empire. And he asks me to see Mr. Borden and wish him every success. I have just mentioned this to show how patriotic service is treated in the Dominions abroad in contrast to the way the National Reserve and others are treated at home. Well, this old North-West Frontier policeman goes on to talk about the National Reserve, in which he is enlisted. He feels very strongly on the matter, and I only mention it at all because here is an outsider who comes and sees things for himself, and in his view reflects the general opinion, and he says, "It seems to me from the speeches made from the Government side of the House that there is a distinct effort to use the National Reserve as a set-off against the shortage in the Territorials." He then asks me two questions. First, What steps have been taken for the National Reserve to secure for them uniform, rifle, and ammunition, and, secondly, if no such steps have been taken, whether the Government will consider the question of providing them at once, so that the men now coming forward in the interest of national safety might be ready for mobilisation in twenty-four hours? These are questions of importance, coming from a man who has had experience of war.
  In Leicestershire the National Reserves, like the Territorials, are growing stronger. There is already a full battalion of men under forty-five years of age and another half battalion of men between forty-five and fifty-five. What is done to encourage them? What the members ask is that they should be taken, seriously, and should not be treated as a mere paper force, and that they should not be held up merely to be flourished in the face of the House of Commons to show that all men that can be required are registered, and to show that there is no possible need for national service. These are questions put by members of the National Reserve. The men would like to do something; they would like to know that they do not merely exist on paper.

  2721
  In Leicestershire the members of the National Reserve would much prefer to undertake liability to serve in an emergency, and that the duties they will be called upon to perform should be clearly defined. I should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman upon this subject. I also suggest that in return for the service these men are prepared to give some privileges might be given to them. Exemption, for instance, from service on juries would be a very valuable privilege, and would be much enjoyed by the men and it is also suggested by many of those concerned, that service in that Reserve might count for long service and good conduct medals. These things are valuable and would be very greatly appreciated by the men, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do something to recognise the service of these men. At present the county associations can only spend one shilling per head upon registration and half of that goes for badges. The first thing necessary is a general parade of the whole force; that cannot be done on account of the expense. If a belt was given or a bandolier or something of that sort it would not be out of place. Some encouragement ought to be given to the men to keep up their firing; a small retaining fee, for instance, might be given to men who fire a certain number of rounds. Anything of that sort would do much to induce the men to keep up a certain standard of efficiency. A certain number of rifles might be allowed, and it should be made clear that a liberal separation allowance will be allowed on mobilisation, and, in the case of accidents, wives and families will be well provided for. I simply wish that the members of the National Reserve should know that it is recognised that they are portion of the defensive force of the country; they want to prove it is so, and they want to know that they have some real business before them on mobilisation.
  The Secretary of State for War told us that the National Reserve as a military asset was of the greatest value and he asked them if they would undertake service. The National Reserve are quite willing to do so if they only got something definite before them; if they were told, for instance, that all men under forty-five years of age on mobilisation would be sent to join some unit of their own service, or that those under fifty-five would be sent to garrison ports or to guard bridges, railways, and stores. That would be definite,
  2722
  but nothing definite is told them; I hope some definite work and some definite orders will be put before them. They would feel proud to be members of a useful living force. An hon. Friend asks me to raise the question of compulsory cadet training, but the right hon. Gentleman has stated that there is no intention of adopting cadet training, and he went on to say, "I am not aware that military cadet training was a part of the policy of my predecessor in office." That was part of Lord Haldane's policy, because he distinctly advocated it and said it was something to be undertaken by the Minister of Education. Yes, Lord Ilaldane was entirely in favour of it. You will find that by reference to his last speech at the Royal United Service Institution. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again to take these matters into his consideration and to see if something cannot be done. I look upon it as the most important thing there is before the country, and I hope the points which I have brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will receive his consideration.
  Colonel SEELY: Certain hon. Gentlemen who have spoken—and I except the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, to whom I shall endeavour to reply—preface their remarks by saying that this matter of organisation was one of great and vital importance to the country and the Empire. I fully agree, and I may be permitted to comment on the fact that if they regard them as of such vital importance, it is a little strange that they should have sprung Debate upon us without any notice whatever to the Minister responsible who has to reply to the particular points raised. Various questions were asked involving strings of figures, and one hon. Gentleman was good enough to ask me not to quote too many. I have made every inquiry, and I find that no notice whatever was given to me or my colleague, and that no notice was given through the Whips. Of course, so far as the Minister is concerned, it may be a great convenience for him to say that he had no notice and that it is impossible for him to reply fully, but in the interests of businesslike discussions, I may be permitted to protest against a matter of this kind, in discussing without notice matters of this character, because if no notice is given it is impossible that a reply in any sense adequate can be put forward. What the reason for this course was I do not know, or whether it was due to a statement in the "Times" of this morning that

  2723
  I was gone on the Continent, which statement I may now say was greatly exaggerated, but whatever the reason was I respectfully protest against it as being a course which makes it impossible to give full and satisfactory definite replies to definite questions. The particular points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down are matters which we have discussed frequently before, and I can answer his questions without previous notice. He asked me about the allowance for Territorial officers. He says £20 was not adequate. I do not think it is an adequate amount, but there is only a certain amount of money to go round, and you have got to act within certain definite limitations, and you cannot go beyond the Estimates. This is a matter demanding careful consideration, and I will consider it. The other point was that in order to encourage Territorial officers, commanding officers should be made Justices of the Peace. I do not agree. As to the judicial aspect I doubt whether the Lord Chancellor would favour the view, not because I do not think that the officers are not most admirable men and excellent officers, but because it is quite plain that a knowledge of military art does not by any means imply a knowledge of judicial procedure.
  Colonel YATE: It was only a suggestion on my part.
  Colonel SEELY: I said I would consider one point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, but I have said I would not consider the other. I will consult with the hon. Member opposite with a view to finding out whether there are any other means of increasing the supply of officers in the Territorial Force. With regard to the National Reserve and its organisation, I have been asked to state definitely what that Reserve is for, and whether we intend to definitely organise it. If I am asked to state whether we are going to create a third Army for foreign service I do not think that would be a wise military policy. Of course, we could organise a National Reserve into battalions, brigades and divisions. The force approaches 150,000 strong, and it is organised. I know this could easily be done, but I do not think it would be sound military policy. The National Reserve is a thing which has grown of itself. The complaint against it is that we have given it no official encouragement. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways.
  2724
  If we have given it no official encouragement it cannot be complained of us that we are wrong in not fully organising it. I regard it as a force of great value, and in time of war it would be of immense service to us. Of that there can be no doubt. I do not, however, agree that it is necessary to organise it into battalions, brigades, and divisions.
  Colonel YATE: I did not suggest that. All I asked was that the men should have some definite duty.
  Colonel SEELY: That would involve their taking a definite obligation. I have consulted a great many persons with regard to the National Reserve. Mr. St. Loe Strachey, who has had a great deal to do with the National Reserve, believes, that if you try to do things too quickly and go to each man and say, "Will you guard that railway, and undertake to do that on mobilisation? Will you undertake to form part of the transport? Will you guard the lines of communication? And will you take dispatches, and be a cyclist when the day of battle comes?" You may kill this force. If Mr. St. Loe Strachey is right it would be unwise to try to go too fast in this matter. It is growing, and it will be a great advantage; but if we try to accomplish this too quickly and jam it into a mould of our own making you may destroy it. We cannot provide £2 a head and clothing and other things, because the cost would be enormous. We could not do any such thing until they are organised in the way in which we have said we will not organise them. That expenditure would not be justified. No such scheme could possibly justify such an expenditure in the initial stages of many hundreds of thousands of pounds. There are more important matters which press for solution. With regard to mobilisation, this is a vitally important matter of which, as I have said already, I have had no notice. The question has been put in a more definite form than it has ever been put before. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman) told us we were no better prepared for war now than we were in 1811, and he said we could not send so many men as we did then, and they would not be so well organised. I think that was the substance of the hon. and gallant Member's speech. I have been able in the shore period since the hon. and gallant Member spoke, to refresh my memory as to what took place in 1811. Our Expeditionary

  2725
  Force now consists of over 160,000 men. I can again assure the House that that force would be ready in as short a time as any similar force would have been ready three years ago, or at any previous time in our history; that it would be able to take the field with proper provision of arms, ammunition, and horses, and it would represent an enormous advance on anything we have yet seen in this country. Do not lot me be taken as stating that everything in this force is perfect, because much remains to be done, and I hope the House will assist me in doing it; but when hon. Members say that we are worse off than before, that is a most fantastic aberration from strict accuracy.
  Colonel BURN: May I point out—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has had his turn, and he had bettor listen to the right hon. Gentleman's reply without interruption.
  Colonel SEELY: I repeat that that is a fantastic aberration from strict accuracy. We are enormously better prepared than we were a few years ago, and great advances have been made. I know it is a little difficult to convince hon. Members as to the great advances made without going into full details, which no country has ever published or ever will publish; but the published statements of our military advisers should carry conviction apart from my own statement and they show that we have made a great and real advance in our readiness for war, so far as the Expeditionary Force is concerned. If hon. Gentlemen will look at page 11 of the Army Estimates they will see that we have 366,987 men liable for foreign service. I know some of those are young, but I was reading only the other day a complaint as to the large number of boys who fought in the battle of Waterloo. We have an Expeditionary Force of 160,000, and that force will be ready in a shorter time than before. I have been looking up the year 1811, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite, and I find in that year there were sent to the Peninsular 46,000 men, and in the year 1809 the number was 22,000 men. A statement was made in the following April in regard to the necessity for further reinforcements. In the year 1810 there were apparently in the line of battle 34,000 men at Torres Vedras. That, of course, is including all the sick and those holding the lines of communication. In 1811 it appears there were altogether in the Peninsular 56,000
  2726
  men, and in a very interesting minute made by the Duke of York he said that there were available 60,000 men. That was considered sufficiently important in those days to note as a very important advance in military efficiency. Now we say that we have 160,000 men available out of a possible 366,000 for foreign service. In the face of those facts how can any hon. Member in this House get up and say that we are not so ready for war as we were in the year 1811? I ask the House to take warning as to those statements, and not believe the persistent statements which are being made on this point to the effect that this country is going to the dogs. Again and again we stand here and say we want more things done and that this country has made great advances in her readiness for war, and again and again a fresh line of attack is taken. We are told that this is done in a non-party manner, and that this question should be treated in a non-party spirit, and yet hon. Members tell us we are not so ready for war as we were in 1811.
  Colonel BURN: I said relatively.
  Colonel SEELY: At that time we had the European armies leagued against us. Have we got that to-day? No. I should say that relatively we were far stronger, but that was not the point made in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wolverhampton. I say that we are doing all that is necessary to ensure the safety of the country.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is attributing to me something I never said at all; I never made any allusion to 1811.
  Colonel SEELY: I absolve the hon. and gallant Gentleman from all blame, and I am afraid that I must fasten the blame on the hon. Member for Torquay (Colonel Burn). The hon. Member for Torquay informs us that he said "relatively," but whether he said relatively or not, both statements I absolutely deny. The question is, Are we doing what is necessary for the safety of the country? I believe we are. We are told that this is a non-party matter, and it is quite clear that it ought to be so regarded. If anyone says that great improvements could be made in our Army, I reply at once by saying that that is so, but we have got to survey the whole field of naval and military defence and other great matters that press upon us. Taking all that into consideration, I believe

  2727
  that adequate provision is made for the defence of our Empire. Our military policy in this country depends in a great measure upon our diplomacy. I know it is difficult to discuss these matters at any length, or to discuss them adequately on an occasion like this, when other subjects are pressing for discussion, and when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary cannot be present having had no notice of this Debate. Taking a survey of the whole field, and regarding this for the moment as a Committee of Imperial Defence, which the House of Commons in the last resort is, I say that we are making adequate preparations for the defence of our Empire. Great advances have been made, and must continue to be made, in making ready for war; but on the whole, I believe, our military advisers have served the country well, and should the hour of danger ever unfortunately come, I do not think we shall be found wanting.

  NAVY ADMINISTRATION.
  Mr. GRETTON: There are certain matters relating to national defence, more particularly connected with the subject of the Navy, which have not been discussed during the previous Debate. It was announced in July last year that Sir William Smith, who had been appointed the Chief Constructor to the Navy, had been superseded and that another gentleman had been appointed to that office. Sir William Smith is a gentleman who has done most distinguished service for the public at the Admiralty. He is of the highest professional attainments, and it has been his fortune to earn the confidence and goodwill of all those with whom he has been brought in contact. I think in the interests of the public service it was a great mistake to supersede Sir William Smith, and there is no doubt whatsoever, from all I can learn, that the treatment he has received—doubtless with the highest intentions of furthering the public service—has caused much uneasiness and dismay at the Admiralty, which cannot conduce to the good of the public service in that great Department. I have no criticism to offer on the gentleman who has been appointed in his stead. I will only say I trust the appointment of the new Constructor will lead to some definite lines of constructing the great battleships that have to be laid down under the naval programme of future years, and that we shall get progression
  2728
  on some well-defined principles. I will not go into a highly technical matter now, but I would like to point out that something was to be said for some of the main principles of the "Dreadnought" that have been abandoned. One advantage was said to be that she carried an armoured belt from one end to the other. In the latest of our battleships the Admiralty has reverted to what they contemptuously spoke of at one time as "the soft end." Either one principle or the other is right, and there should have been some definite announcement as to what was right before changes of this kind were made, to be followed by a reversion to a principle which was so strenuously condemned.
  This is the only naval Power in the world which has for a long period abandoned secondary armaments in battleships. The "Dreadnought" class has been said to have all big guns, but no other great naval Power, either in the United States, or Germany, or Japan, have abandoned the secondary armament. They all have a powerful battery of guns—five-inch, six-inch, and even larger—in addition to the twelve-inch guns, which form the main armament. I understand, and I hope the rumour will be confirmed, that the all-big gun principle is no longer to be adhered to, and that our battleships will have a secondary armament which will put them on an equality with the great vessels belonging to other naval Powers. It is the more necessary because it is notorious in the Service, and must be obvious to anyone who has any knowledge of naval construction, that modern battleships have not so good and steady gun platforms as their predecessors. They are of greater breadth, and consequently they must move rapidly and more easily, especially broadside-ways. I wish to make a few remarks on the contemplated changes in the Department of the Controller of the Navy. Neither the public outside nor this House has any accurate information as to what those changes are to be, but, from what has been said by the First Lord of the Admiralty on several occasions and from the Memorandum attached to his statement, it would appear the new Civil Lord is to take over the technical construction contract work and the management of the dockyards, which have hitherto been brought under one head and represented at the Board of Admiralty by the Controller of the Navy.
  I hope, and I know many others outside hope—I would not venture to speak

  2729
  on these matters unless I knew the opinion was well-founded and was held by those who are much more able and better competent to express an opinion than I am—that not for one moment will the fact be lost sight of that the Admiralty after all is a war organisation, and will itself be the war staff responsible for the management of the Navy in war From that point of view, it is not desirable the civil element should too largely predominate on the Board of Admiralty. In times past men who have long experience of sea service have been appointed to the great Departments of the Admiralty, and have then, when they have completed their service there, returned to the sea. That has brought into our naval administration that practical experience which has preserved the Admiralty from many of the errors and many of the troubles which have beset the War Office in the past. It is better that practical fighting men, who may again have to go to sea and risk their lives in war, should be brought into service at the Admiralty to assist in those peace preparations which must be made by a civilian Department, but which will be brought to a head in times of war.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty has announced that there is to be an inquiry into the employment of oil fuel in the Navy, and, in answer to a question the other day, he gave the names of the gentlemen who will form the Commission. I trust the Admiralty will take immediate steps to communicate with the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office in order that the oil fields which are available for ourselves in our own Possessions may be preserved from any combines or any foreign companies which might deprive the Admiralty or any other British Service of those supplies which they might need. No doubt it will be found oil is the right fuel to use, and that it will have to be largely used. It will alter the whole strategic position, because at the present time our supplies of fuel for the Navy come from the centre, whilst if oil is adopted largely in the Navy the supplies will come from outside and will have to be drawn into the centre. That will mean controlling and guarding trade routes and possibly, in war, a reversion to the system of convoys. I do not think that has been adequately thought over by the Admiralty. I have nothing to say of the gentlemen who form this Commission except as to the chairman, and it is only right it should be publicly stated in this House that Lord Fisher's recall has
  2730
  caused a great deal of dismay and alarm throughout the Navy. The period of his administration at the Admiralty was notoriously a time of controversy, uneasiness, favouritism, and supersessions. There were two parties, as is well known, set up in the Navy constantly disagreeing and struggling against one another.
  There had never been anything of the kind in the Naval Service before, and those who regard esprit de corps in the Navy as of the greatest importance to the defence of the Empire, view with alarm the fact that Lord Fisher has been recalled to the Admiralty where his period of service was associated with so much controversy. Those who hold this view feel strongly that a man of so much energy and ability as Lord Fisher cannot have a room and become one of the great officials of the Admiralty without having great influence over the First Lord of the Admiralty himself, and in many of the details and subjects associated with the work of the Admiralty with which he has no immediate connection. I should like to say something as to the great changes which took place when Lord Fisher was chief naval adviser to the Crown. The abandonment of the coaling stations was one of the matters for which he was responsible as technical adviser to the Ministry of the day. If we are going in for oil fuel for the Navy, it will mean a reversion to the system of outside stations for oil fuel and a complete reversal of what Lord Fisher did in abandoning the coaling stations. I asked the First Lord during the Navy Debate as to how he calculated the position of battleships immediately ready for war on an emergency, and, as I understand, there are at the present time thirty-two battleships in commission.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill)indicated dissent.
  Mr. GRETTON: Not so many?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Twenty-seven.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. GRETTON: Twenty-seven in full commission, and at the end of this year Germany, we understand, will have twenty-one. The same position arises in 1914. We are told that in that year in the narrow seas there will be thirty-three battleships or battle cruisers permanently in commission on a war footing ready for any emergency. In the same year Germany is to have twenty-nine. We are told that our total force permanently in commission

  2731
  is to be forty-one, and I presume that although that will include what the First Lord called the pivot Fleet at Gibraltar, it will not include the four battle-cruisers to be permanently stationed in the Mediterranean and based upon Malta only. The First Lord is contemplating having thirty-three in 1914. On the 18th March, when he made his annual statement on the Navy, he said it was necessary to strike off from the British strength 25 per cent. for ships under repair and in dock, because they would not be immediately ready to take their place in the fighting line; therefore, from, the thirty-three ships eight must be struck off, and that leaves twenty-five as against Germany's twenty-nine, because, in the case of sudden war, we must take it that Germany or any other Power declaring war would be careful to have her fleet at its maximum strength and in every way in readiness. I do not think it will be disputed that this calculation by the First Lord has caused great dismay and alarm among those who take an active interest in this question. They feel that the margin is far too narrow and is disappearing, and those who hold that the position of this nation depends upon the absolute safety of our supremacy at sea—and they are, I believe, a vast majority of the people of this country—are seriously alarmed at the narrowness of the margin, and are bitterly disappointed and dismayed because the First Lord has not taken steps to give a larger margin of safety than apparently is in contemplation.
  The British Admiralty must not rely upon the Colonies to make up for its delinquencies. No doubt Canada is prepared to contribute, as also are other Colonies, but they will do so only in order that there may be a fleet detached from the narrow seas, and available for service in any part of the world, in any Colonial waters, in the Pacific, or the Indian Ocean, independently of that required for our safety in the narrow seas. From all I can learn, if the Admiralty is scheming to rely on the Colonies to make up its own deficiency and to secure a margin of safety, it will find the Colonial Governments will not readily respond, because they are not prepared to support the Admiralty in a cheese-paring and dangerous policy. These subjects are of the greatest importance, and are causing great alarm and uneasiness among those interested. I hope
  2732
  the First Lord will be able to make some statement, either now or in the autumn, which will do away with this alarm and anxiety. We have believed in him hitherto; we have hoped he is actuated by the one desire to fulfil the duties of his great office to the best of his ability, and with the single purpose that the Navy shall be as perfect and as powerful as he is able to make it. But rumours are spreading everywhere that he has been overruled by other Members of the Cabinet. We hope they are not true, because, if they are, the people will no longer be ready to give him that trust which they were prepared to give him when he first took office.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I do not rise with any intention of further discussing the very important subject raised by my hon. Friend—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member wished to discuss the same topic.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I want to discuss a topic connected with the Navy, but not the particular one brought forward by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak on some matters connected with the dockyards, with which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty would more properly deal.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It would be more convenient then to call upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the hon. Member can bring his point forward afterwards.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I assure the House I do not propose to stand long between it and the hon. Member, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply to the various points raised by the hon. Member for Rutland. That hon. Gentleman, in his brief and moderate speech, travelled over very wide ground. I do not propose to follow him step by step into all the different spheres of naval administration into which he entered. I have already during the course of this Session, made two considerable statements to the House on naval policy. I do not desire to make, neither do I feel the need of making, any addition to those statements at the present time, nor do I expect to be called upon to make any new or serious statement when we assemble again after our holidays. I do not propose to go into the question of the standard of naval strength

  2733
  between this country and various European Powers, because all the facts on the subject which it is necessary or possible to state have already been laid before the House or are accessible in the official publications which have been supplied. That remark applies also to the question of Canadian naval policy, on which it is certainly not desirable or possible to make any further statement at the present time. I should like, however, to say I think the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman that we must not expect Canada to cover up our delinquencies is a little wanting in justice to the immense exertions which have been made by this country for so many years, at tremendous expense, in bearing, practically unaided, the whole burden of Imperial defence. The hon. Gentleman spoke on several interesting controversies of a highly technical character connected with the designs of warships. There again I find a little difficulty in following him in every detail, because these are matters which it is not possible to deal with in a few observations exchanged across the floor of the House. In order to do justice to the design of a battleship or to the theory on which that design is based it would be necessary to enter with the utmost precision and fulness into all sorts of details, extremely technical and extremely confidential, and while their technicality would make me a very undesirable medium for explaining them, their confidential character would, I think, make the House a very unsuitable place for such an explanation.
  The hon. Member also spoke of the new appointments which have been made in the Department of naval construction. The task of filling up the place vacated by Sir Philip Watts has been the most difficult in the region of patronage which I have had to discharge since I took office, because, while there was no one of the same prominence as Sir Philip Watts, there were a number of very able and competent gentlemen both in the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors and outside between whom it was necessary to judge. I have certainly acted without precipitancy. On the contrary, a great many people have thought there has been too long a delay in coming to a decision. But I was very anxious that all the claims should be exhaustively considered, and I was also very anxious to make an oppointment which would be most convenient and most satisfactory, from every point of view, to the Admiralty at the present time, and I have no doubt whatever that the decision which
  2734
  has been arrived at is one which will be found to be satisfactory in practice. I should like to repeat what I have already said in answer to a question, that this decision implies no slight or slur upon the public services of Sir William Smith. After a service of forty-two years at the Admiralty, he goes into retirement at his own wish, and he carries away with him the respect, regard, and good wishes of everyone with whom and under whom he has served. The hon. Gentleman asked further about the new Table of Business. Just as I rather deprecated discussing those other matters on the ground that they have already been considerably before Parliament this Session, I find a difficulty in discussing that, because it would be almost impossible to make the House appreciate it fully without the publication of the new Table of Business, and the Memorandum by which that will be accompanied. That publication is not yet ready. It will take place in the course of a very few days, and I shall add to it a minute or memorandum of explanation which will be much more satisfactory and informing than any description I could improvise in the course of these few remarks this afternoon. I will say this, however, that there are in the Comptroller's Department three main aspects: first of all, design; second, repairs and refits; and, third, the business aspects of that great department. When the new Table of Business is published, it will, I think, be found that we have provided for these different branches of business in such a way as to enable each to be transacted with greater smoothness and thoroughness, and that at the same time we have preserved the proper essential combination for a common purpose of all these three large spheres of Admiralty business.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Oil Fuel Committee. There again he is entering upon the realms of the future. He asks various questions, and used various arguments about the adoption of oil fuel, and its consequences upon our tactical and strategic arrangements, but these are matters which are to be largely illuminated by the work upon which the Committee is engaged. I do not see any advantage to be gained by making an attempt to deal in a partial or superficial manner with them now. Let me, however, assure the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the Committee is sitting and inquiring into the general questions of oil fuel and its application to warship engines by no means

  2735
  blocks the way to the day to day administration of the Admiralty in regard to the adoption of oil fuel, or to the accumulation of the proper reserve, or to all other measures connected with this most important part of our naval system. On the contrary, we are not going to be delayed at all by the excursions which the Committee will have to make, and we have long ago made the communications with the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office which the hon. Gentleman desired in order that we might not be behindhand in regard to any oil which may be discovered within the circuit of the British Dominions.
  The hon. Gentleman—and this is the last of his points to which I shall refer—struck a personal note in regard to Lord Fisher, and he expressed regret that Lord Fisher should have been appointed to preside over this Committee. Sir, I am certainly not going to apologise for making such an appointment. I am glad to think that since I have had the honour to hold my present position I have received the aid and support of all sections of naval opinion and of officers who, according to public repute, occupy most opposite and even antagonistic points of view. Sir Reginald Custance is the head of one of the Committees of Inquiry into the Education system, and now Lord Fisher, I am glad to say, has consented to preside over this Committee on Oil Fuel. We need at the present time all the best brains that the Naval Service can supply, and I am certainly not going to make myself a party to those divisions and factions, which the hon. Gentleman says existed in the past, by excluding from the range of Admiralty choice any officers of high distinction who are willing to render us service. The time has not come to appreciate fully Lord Fisher's work for the Navy, but the imprint of his administration is deep in every branch of our naval system. In the construction of our ships, in the position of our naval science, in the system of education which prevails, in the concentration and disposition of the Fleet, and in many other spheres, his hand has left a mark which will not be effaced within the course of the next ten or twelve years. I have given my best attention to these problems, and I am sure that the more Lord Fisher's contribution to our naval efficiency is studied and examined, and tested by the passage of time, the more certainly will it be established that there has been within
  2736
  living memory no naval administrator possessed of abilities so rare and so distinguished.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: I desire to bring two comparatively small matters to the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty. These two questions are of smaller general interest than those which have been under discussion, and the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that he can turn a deaf ear to the case I am going to present to him without endangering the safety or commerce of the country. But I hope that neither the Government nor the House will consider that a grievance is to be regarded as trifling merely because it affects a comparatively small number of people. The first point to which I wish to refer is the status and pay of the schoolmasters of the Royal Marines. They are a very small body of men, but I think I shall be able to show that in their present situation they have a legitimate grievance. In the year 1881 headmasters in the Royal Navy were for the first time given warrant grant. Up to that time the position of the schoolmasters in the Navy as regards pensions, pay, and position was altogether inferior to that of the schoolmasters in the Royal Marines. Up to that date the Admiralty actually transferred some of these schoolmasters from the Royal Navy to the Marines in order that they might thereby gain an improvement in their pay and pension. But as soon as the Navy schoolmasters received warrant rank their pay, pension, and position were then increased, and from that date no more headmasters who had gone into the Navy were transferred to the Marines. I suppose the necessity for that had gone by. Although that was true with regard to headmasters, the chief petty officer schoolmasters were from time to time selected for promotion and were transferred in the same way. It was, therefore, clear that at that time warrant officer head schoolmasters in the Navy and warrant officer schoolmasters in the Royal Marines were considered by the Admiralty to be in a position of equality.
  In recent years further revisions or improvements have been made in regard to naval schoolmasters. Taking the head schoolmasters first, in 1904 three of them received commission rank, and as chief schoolmasters they received an improvement in pay up to 11s. a day and allowances, and a pension of £120 a year. In 1910 this number of three head

  2737
  schoolmasters in the Navy was increased to four, and they were still further benefited by their maximum pay being increased to 13s. 6d. a day, their pension was raised from £120 to £150 a year, and they were enabled to retire with the rank of lieutenant after three years' service as head schoolmasters. The position of the petty officer schoolmasters was similarly dealt with in 1904. Ten of them were promoted to be additional warrant officer head schoolmasters—a very cumbrous title. Six years later, in 1910, nine more of them were similarly promoted to warrant rank, their pay being increased from 8s. 6d. to 11s. a day, and they were given a maximum pension of £100 a year. No corresponding improvement was given at either of those dates to the schoolmasters in the Marines, and that although they were originally in a better position. I should like to draw a comparison between the present position of these two sets of schoolmasters, first of all as regards pay, and then as regards pensions. As regards the Navy, a chief schoolmaster gets 13s. 6d. a day and a warrant officer head schoolmaster gets 11s. a day, whereas a warrant officer Marine schoolmaster only gets 7s. 6½d. a day—pay on a very much lower scale. As regards pension, a chief schoolmaster in the Navy gets £150, a warrant officer head schoolmaster gets £100, and a Marine warrant officer schoolmaster gets only £82 a year, so that in all these particulars, as regards pay, pension, and promotion to commissioned ranks, the Marines are at a disadvantage. Something over 80 per cent., I believe, of those who hold equal rank with the Marine schoolmasters in the Navy obtain a step, and sometimes more than one step, in rank, whereas the Marine schoolmaster remains for all time a warrant officer. If he is compared with the schoolmasters in the Army the Marine also suffers by the comparison, because they also have commissioned rank open to them, whereas the Marine schoolmaster is entirely shut out.
  He is a man of very great importance. He has to prepare non-commissioned officers for their steps in promotion, and he occupies an important position in the schools, both for the children and the men. I cannot imagine any reason except one for this, I think, gross inequality between these two sets of schoolmasters. The only reason I can imagine is that the Marine schoolmaster has the advantage, if it is an advantage, of being able to be continuously employed upon shore instead of
  2738
  having to go to sea. I do not know whether that is considered by all of them an advantage or not, but I feel very certain that it is not an advantage which at all compensates them for the very great inferiority which they suffer as compared with the men of the Navy, and it causes, I think legitimately, a very distinct sense of injustice when they remember the history which I have sketched—that they were originally in the better position of the two and that they are now on such a very inferior footing, both as regards pay and pension, and, perhaps more important still, as regards promotion. I hope, although the actual number of individuals who suffer this injustice is a small one, the Admiralty will not on that account refuse to consider their claims and do something to remedy this injustice.
  The other matter to which I wish to refer is also a very serious injustice which is being suffered by a small locality. St. Margaret's Bay, between Dover and Deal, is one of the most beautiful spots upon our coast, and it depends for its prosperity upon its beauty, which attracts a considerable number of summer visitors. This small place is being gradually destroyed by the sea, and I hope to be able to convince the House that the encroachment by the sea is, if not entirely, at all events mainly, the direct outcome of the naval works which have been in recent years carried out at Dover. Up to the year 1847, and I think for a year or two afterwards, at St. Margaret's Bay, there was a coast road, which ran round from Dover to Deal, and was very largely used. That has ceased to exist entirely now owing to the encroachment of the sea, and there is no hope of its being revived at all. In 1847 the old Admiralty Pier at Dover was commenced, and from that date during succeeding years, it was noticed that the sea was making advances in St. Margaret's Bay, and gradually sweeping away foot after foot of the land until the road was swept away and a large number of houses had also been destroyed. Scientific opinion points out quite clearly that this is the result of the works at Dover. In view of what I believe to be the reply of the Admiralty, there is rather an interesting circumstance. Not very long ago I had the privilege of taking part in a deputation to the Civil Lord, and therefore I know to some extent the grounds upon which the Admiralty rely for resisting the claim of these people for compensation from the Government. The position of the

  2739
  Admiralty, I believe, is that there is not sufficient evidence to show that the encroachment of the sea is the direct result of the works at Dover.
  I know on that occasion the Civil Lord of the Admiralty quoted the opinion of a scientific gentleman—an engineer—given in the year 1873, that he did not think that the Admiralty Pier had caused this encroachment. There is this very curious circumstance which I think points to the fact that the works at Dover is the guilty party. The encroachment was first noticed, I am informed, soon after the original Admiralty Pier was built at Dover, and for many years the encroachment continued; but at a certain period, some twenty years or so after these works were completed, apparently a new equilibrium had been brought about, and no further encroachment whatever took place for some time, showing that the cause had worked itself out, and that the sea had established a new basis for itself. But when the new works at Dover, which have only been recently completed, were carried out, this encroachment began again, and it has been going on much more seriously during the last year or two, and only within the last twelve months most serious damage has been done, and the prospect is very serious indeed. I do not think the Admiralty ought to rely in a matter of this sort upon one, or even two opinions given them by scientific gentlemen. Everyone knows, who has ever been in a Law Court, that it is the easiest thing in the world to get expert evidence to move out the expert evidence given on the other side; and a Government Department, of course, has its experts always at its call, whose habit of thought it is to support the non possumus attitude of the Government Department. I should like to give the House some extracts from evidence which I have at my disposal. First of all, I should like to read a letter which was written within the last month or two, dated 3rd May, 1912, from Professor Boyd Dawkins, who is a man of very great eminence. He is the Professor of Geology in the Victoria University at Manchester, and I believe his opinion upon a point of this sort is at least as good as that of any other living individual. He says:
  "In my opinion the new harbour works at Dover cannot fail to make the erosion of the sea front from Dover to St. Margaret's and beyond, greater and swifter than it was before they were made."
  The reason why these works has this effect is this. There has been always—for
  2740
  what reason I really do not know, and I am not sure scientific opinion can explain—in the Channel a drift of shingle from the west to the east, and that shingle is thrown up by the sea at different points and creates a natural barrier, preventing the sea from encroaching upon the coast. But when the works at Dover were made they created a wall which stopped the flow of this shingle, or threw it out into deep water, with the result that it ceased to be formed in the shape of a shingle bank in St. Margaret's Bay, and the sea was therefore at liberty to do what it has done, namely, to encroach upon the shore. I should like to quote a few words from a report which has been given by Mr. Case, who was also a very eminent engineer, and who is himself the author of a standard work upon coast erosion. He says:—
  "After a careful inspection of the coast, and consideration of the available historical and documentary evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the erosion is due to the alongshore travel of the beach to the north eastward by the wind waves being greater than the supply of beach brought in from the south westward. The beach travel from Folkestone to Dover has for the past forty years been trapped at Dover by the old Admiralty Pier, and it has not been possible for many years past for any appreciable amount of beach to travel north eastwards past the mouth of the old Dover Harbour."
  That was the condition of things with regard to the original works at Dover, and it has caused much greater damage in the course of the last year or two, and the opinion of Professor Case and of other scientific gentlemen is that if it is allowed to go on it must in twenty or thirty years entirely sweep away all the inhabitable part of St. Margaret's Bay, and destroy the houses and hotels there, and everything else. Mr. Stillgo, engineer to the Birmingham Corporation, says:—
  "It was certain the erosion at St. Margaret's Bay had been greater since the Admiralty Pier was constructed."
  Another Civil engineer, Mr. Wheeler, who has written a book on the sea coast, said that:—
  "As the Admiralty Pier advanced seaward, all travel of shingle eastward was completely stopped, and the beach of St. Margaret's Bay has become much denuded."
  Then I quote the opinion of a gentleman who is himself employed by the Admiralty. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would pay more attention to what he says than to anyone else. This is Sir William Mathews, civil engineer and engineer for the Admiralty for the Dover National Harbour. In the proceedings before the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion he made these remarks:—
  "There has been a considerable growth of beach from the stoppage of the travel. When the Admiralty

  2741
  works were finished, there would be a considerable area of accretion which will be worth money."
  Consequently the Admiralty, according to the evidence of their own engineer, is actually going to get some money's worth—I do not say anything very great, but some value—out of the damage they are doing to other people. We know that when a county council sweeps away a slum area it has to rehouse the people it displaces, and I certainly think the Admiralty, when they are carrying out great national works for the benefit of the country, when they have to destroy, as they are destroying, a small and a beautiful seaside resort, the least they can do—they cannot, as the county councils do, rehouse the people; but the expert opinion is that they could, for a comparatively small sum of money, do something to prevent further damage taking place. I understand that these works at Dover have absorbed between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 of money. To prevent this encroachment of the sea at St. Margaret's Bay going on and sweeping the whole place away would only cost about £5,000 or £6,000.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Cannot the local authority find that?
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: More than £5,000 has already been spent; I do not think by the local authority, but by subscription—at all events by the locality. It is not a very populous or a wealthy locality, and I believe they have got to the limit of their resources. They did cope with the original damage, but it is so much greater now and so much more rapid that it has got altogether beyond their control. They are advised that it will take another £6,000 to do the necessary groining work in order to stop the encroachment of the sea. They are unable to do it for themselves, and as they have, I think, a very large volume of evidence that the injury has been caused by the Admiralty works, I think it would only be a matter of justice that the Admiralty should take their case into consideration in a much more sympathetic spirit than it has assumed yet, and that it should not rely upon the report of an engineer, which may be right or may be wrong. I do not want to put my case higher than that it is a matter of controversy. You have a large mass of expert opinion upon one side and upon the other, and you may say that it is at least an open question whether the destruction at St. Margaret's Bay is or is not the result of the Admiralty works. Under these circumstances, I think the Admiralty might
  2742
  take, I will not say a just view, but a generous view, of the position which I have laid before the House. I hope I shall have a sympathetic answer from the right hon. Gentleman, and some definite promise that the very serious injury done to these people will be taken into consideration by the Admiralty.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I will reply at once to the two points brought before the House so courteously and, if I may say so, so powerfully by the hon. Gentleman opposite. First of all with regard to the Marine schoolmasters, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that in recent years we had done a very great deal for the naval schoolmasters. Some years ago he said we established for them the commissioned warrant rank of chief schoolmaster, which was a consideration. More recently we gave a general increase of pay to naval schoolmasters. We also increased the number of head schoolmasters, and the number of chief schoolmasters, and we increased the maximum pension for chief schoolmasters. We also increased the scale of widows' pensions. The hon. Member said also that we created the relative rank of lieutenant for chief schoolmasters on retirement after three years' service in that rank. All these were very considerable reforms with which I was very glad to be associated. I suppose the fact of the matter is the Marine schoolmasters think it is their turn. But I do not quite think that their conditions are entirely comparable with those of naval schoolmasters. I do not think that the two cases are quite parallel. The hon. Member said that I might turn a deaf ear to their case because the numbers were small. There are fourteen Marine schoolmasters, and I shall not turn a deaf ear to them because the number is small at all. But I do not think that the Marine schoolmaster—I say this with full sympathy—is quite entitled to base his case on what we have done for the naval schoolmaster. The naval schoolmaster goes afloat, but the Marine schoolmaster is always at home in barracks. In the case of a married man with a family he finds it much more comfortable to remain ashore. I am afraid I can give no undertaking—it would be going beyond my province to do so—that we can promise any change. I am familiar with this question and with the case as it has been put on behalf of the Marine schoolmasters. I assure the hon. Gentle-

  2743
  man that the points he has put forward will receive most serious consideration on our part. Beyond that I could not undertake to go, because I would be the last man to raise hopes which might not be realised.
  Let me refer to what the hon. Gentleman said as to the encroachment on the foreshore at St. Margaret's. His contention is that the harbour works which have been carried on at Dover have increased the amount of coast erosion at St. Margaret's Bay. In December last the hon. secretary of the St. Margaret's Bay Preservation Committee represented that damage was being done there, and asked whether we would make some contribution towards the cost of preserving the foreshore. As the hon. Gentleman has stated, on 21st May last the Civil Lord received a deputation on the subject. He not only received a deputation, but we received reports from our officials on the matter. I was rather struck with the discrimination made by the hon. Gentleman with respect to our experts and other experts. He seemed to be under the impression that our experts would always tell us what they thought we liked to hear, while his experts, or scientific gentlemen, as he called them, were to be regarded as men who had casually dropped in from the golf course at Deal to give an absolutely unbiassed opinion as to the cause of the coast erosion. I do not go so far as to say that our officials are men who will always tell us what we wish to hear, while his experts are always scientific gentlemen who are quite disinterested.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: It was quite unintentional if I did so.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Quite so. I am not putting the point very seriously. It was considered that the memorialists were not justified in saying that the erosion had been caused by the construction of the Admiralty Harbour at Dover. They were so informed in a letter dated 19th July last, as follows:—
  "I have laid before my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty your letters of the 7th ultimo and 4th instant, submitting statements relative to the erosion of the Coast at St. Margaret's Bay, Rover.
  "My Lords have closely considered the statements put forward by the St. Margaret's Bay Preservation Committee; but they are of opinion that no facts have been adduced to substantiate the theory of the Committee that the erosion in question has been caused by the Admiralty works at Dover.
  "The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had an interview on the 2nd instant with Mr. Charles E. Thomas, of Granville, Lansdowne. Bath, at which Mr. Thomas was verbally informed to the above effect.
  2744
  "The two reports and plans prepared by Mr. G. O. Case for your Committee are returned as requested."
  That is where the matter rests. It is quite true that the British Navy is designed for the preservation of our shores; but I am afraid we cannot admit that the money at our disposal for that purpose is applicable for preservation of this sort, unless the hon. Gentleman can bring it home more closely, reliably, definitely and clearly that our operations have caused the erosion, or accentuated it, at St. Margaret's Bay. I am rather inclined to think that if we admitted such liability a good many claims might be made from different parts of the country.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: May I ask one question? Do the expert gentlemen, or the scientific gentlemen, who advise the Admiralty, suggest any other cause for the erosion which has taken place coincidentally with the works at Dover?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They are of opinion that no facts have been adduced to show that these works caused the erosion. All I can do is this: I have read the papers, but I will go through the matter again with the Civil Lord, and put the views of the hon. Gentleman before him. But here again I am sorry I cannot undertake to give any assurance that we shall be able to comply with the request of the memorialists.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Mr. PEEL: I wish to raise one or two questions connected with the administration of the Insurance Act, and chiefly as regards outworkers. I may say that there is a good deal of disturbance and trouble going on in some businesses at present in Somersetshire, partly owing to the difficulty of adjusting themselves to the new conditions under the Insurance Act. In one factory over a hundred outworkers have already been dismissed, or received notice to quit. There are certain persons also who are a good deal disturbed on account of the changes of front on the part of the Government as regards the exclusion or inclusion of married women outworkers. The House will remember that first of all they were excluded, and that as the result of the deliberations of a Committee on which my Noble Friend sat, and which recommended that they should be included, they have been included by special order of the Commissioners, although that order has not yet had the force of law. These people feel they have a grievance in connection with that change

  2745
  of front, because after all the rather slow moving Saxon does not approve of rapid changes. The point I wish first of all to establish is that the outworkers' system in the country—I am not dealing with the aspect of it as regards the towns—is very wholesome and useful. There are certain objections to it in the towns which do not apply to outworkers in the country. One is that you cannot be responsible for the conditions under which it is done in towns, and that it might be better done in places where it could be inspected. That does not apply to the Somersetshire villages. Another objection is that it tends to lower the wages of the husbands. That, I think, cannot be maintained, because if you compare the wages where outwork is not done, you cannot establish a difference between them and the wages paid where it is done. Therefore, from the point of view of the outworker it is a wholesome system, and it is of immense advantage to people living two to fifteen miles round towns to get some little addition to what their husbands receive, or that girls or widows should be able to make a few shillings, and thereby add to the comfort of the homes. From the point of view of the manufacturers themselves, I think there is a certain advantage, because, although they cannot increase the amount of labour by having it spread over a number of women, they can have a reserve of labour which can be called upon when there is a pressure of work. Therefore, the whole industry may gain a certain advantage. There are, however, considerable difficulties connected with this problem. First of all, if you insure these people under ordinary insurance, the chances are that the outwork system would come to an end altogether, for in certain of these industries the profit is very small, and the amount of insurance relatively to the amount paid in wages is high. The danger, on the one hand, is that these people might lose their work entirely, and their insurance as well, and, on the other hand, there is the risk in certain circumstances of their being constantly in arrears, and falling below the thirteen weeks as to sickness insurance, and, where the wages are small, falling below the twenty-six weeks, when they have the pleasure of paying and getting no advantage whatever for what they pay.
  7.0 P.M.
  There are certain courses open to the right hon. Gentleman, some of which I have no doubt he will not take. First of all, quite a good case could be made out for
  2746
  the exclusion of all these outworkers. I am not going to press that case now, because I recognise the difficulties that would have to be dealt with. But life among these people is healthy. They are long-lived. The torch of light burns less feverishly in the soft air of Somersetshire than in the atmosphere of more crowded places, and married women there are not likely to enter into insurance at some other time nor as a class. The only people who would be ikely to suffer would be unmarried girls, who might find themselves going to other occupations in other parts of the country and find it difficult at an older age, without further sacrifice, to enter into insurance. As regards exclusion entirely, I agree with the Noble Lord. I certainly do not advocate myself the exclusion of married women as married women. I do not think that the problem would be at all solved by the exclusion by status, because there is no special class of work for married women. The class of work is spread among the different women, whether they are wives, maids, or widows, and such exclusion would be thoroughly out of harmony with the tendency of modern legislation—that you should not give an absolute preference, as you would do in this case, to the work of married women.
  The right hon. Gentleman is at present dealing with the matter under two schemes, the A scheme and the B scheme. The A scheme is merely under the ordinary system, and the objections which I have already stated apply to that in full force. The B scheme represents another method. In order that it may be adopted it is obvious that you must make it more easy to work and less expensive than the A scheme. The general principle of B scheme is that insurance is paid, not according to what is done in a particular week, bur according to the amount paid, so that there is some relation between the amount paid in insurance and the amount paid for work, and in order to arrive at that relation a certain unit of work was fixed which a normal outworker, working a certain number of hours a day, might be able to get through in the course of a week. That is fixed as the unit to be paid for the ordinary rate of insurance, and half that is treated as a half unit, but beyond the unit and the half unit no further fractions or subdivisions are to be allowed. There is a great deal of difficulty in working these units. It is obviously to the advantage of the industry and of both employers and employed that

  2747
  the unit should be fixed high, because in that case the relative amount they pay in insurance is less, and the charge is therefore less. In some of these industries 13s. has been fixed by the inspectors who recently held an inquiry at Yeovil as the limit. There are many difficulties in the matter of working this unit, which are rather too technical to deal with here, but I would like to call attention to one difficulty. It says, "If further payment is made to the same outworker in the same or next succeeding week all the work paid for by the same employer during the two weeks must be regarded as one piece of work for the purpose of reckoning the amount of the contribution payable. If necessary, an additional stamp or stamps must be affixed to the card, but if a whole calendar week from Monday to Sunday inclusive has passed without stamps being affixed to the card the employer shall affix a stamp on the next parcel of work without regard to previous payments." I cannot understand why exceptions of this kind should be introduced, because there may be weeks in which these outworkers do not do any work at all, and why merely because this week intervenes without any work being done the work in the next week should have this payment for insurance fixed without any regard to previous payments I confess I do not understand. I only cite this as one of the things which make this system not altogether satisfactory as a way of dealing with the problem.
  I would make two suggestions. One I think is really the best way of dealing with the difficulty. The other is less immediate, though perhaps it might be taken into consideration. I have said that you cannot exclude any one class of worker according to status, because of course if you exclude married women obviously you would put a considerable preference on their employment, and that would be an unfair way of treating the others, but you might make a distinction between machine work and handwork, when done in the homes, and it would be quite possible to exclude those who are engaged in handwork. If that were done, it would go far to solve the difficulty, because the machine workers work more regularly and earn higher wages than the handworkers, and therefore the expense of insurance in their case is rather less. The handworkers, of course, do less work, but you would not put a premium on their work by excluding them
  2748
  from insurance because their work must be handwork, and you would not therefore throw any machine work on to them, because as soon as machine work is thrown on to them they would become machine workers, and then they would not be excluded from insurance. Further, handworkers are the persons who earn less. They are the people who get less benefit from an insurance and who are more likely, certainly under scheme B, to be constantly in arrears, in arrears probably, not only to the extent of losing more than thirteen weeks on the average, and therefore being entirely out of sickness benefit, but also more than twenty-six weeks on the average, and therefore losing medical and maternity benefit as well. Therefore, I think, that those might fairly be taken out of insurance altogether.
  I have already explained that I do not think that they would suffer in other ways, because a good case might be made for their total exclusion. The other suggestion I only offer as an alternative in this way, because other methods of insurance might be considered. It has been suggested that you should not have this elaborate system of the unit or the half unit as the method of calculating surpluses and deficits; but merely a farthing one each side should be paid for every shilling of work done—that is to say, a halfpenny in all per shilling. That would save a great deal of trouble in the administration of the Act; but, of course, if that were done, I think, for the purposes of those insured under it it would be necessary to have a difference in insurance. They would pay less; the contributions would be less; the benefits would be less also, and you would really want, if you are going to keep these women in work, another system of insurance, with smaller contributions and smaller benefits, instead of forcing them into general insurance, in which they are always likely to be in arrears while getting very little advantage out of the insurance into which they have been forced. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking of the millions of people insured under the Act—twelve or fourteen millions. I hope because he has been dealing with these gigantic figures he will not be unsympathetic towards these small humble units-to which I have been referring, because he has to remember that these are human units, and I hope that if he can he will settle this matter in a satisfactory way without disturbance to business and without breaking down this useful system

  2749
  which he will admit is a useful system of outwork that enables a certain amount, if not of wealth, at least of home comfort and happiness to be brought into their humble homes by this extra work.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: If my hon. Friend who has just sat down will allow me to say so I would like to pay him the compliment of saying that the speech which he has made is the most lucid exposition of a very complicated subject that I have heard yet, and if I am not able to emulate his clearness, at all events I can envy it. If I differ from him at all I differ not in kind but in degree, and perhaps as the circumstances of my own outworkers are, I believe, quite peculiar and the conditions of my election were unusual I may be allowed to take a rather different view of this whole question from the rest of my party. If I disagree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down I only disagree in that I would go further than he has done. But before I go into that I would wish that the past should be relegated, as far as I am concerned in Somerset, to the limbo of forgotten things. Let the dead bury their own dead. I do not want to confuse politics and business at the present moment, and I only want to do the very best I can for my own outworkers. There is one point in the Insurance Act as to which there will be general agreement, and that is that it should encourage and not penalise labour. And when my hon. Friend, the Member for Taunton, or myself advocates the exclusion of either the whole of the outworkers or part of the outworkers we do it not because we hold a brief for the employer, but because we hold a very strong brief for employment. In the Insurance Act there are several industries that are going to be remunerated when those employed in those trades are thrown out of work. Then in those trades there will naturally be a great deal of gratitude to the author of the Insurance Act.
  I happen to represent workers in other trades which the Act itself is going to throw out of work, and from those trades and those who represent them you cannot expect any kind of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member who last addressed the House spoke about the difference between the outworkers in the country and in towns. On the whole I think all those who know the conditions will agree with me that outwork
  2750
  is one of the best kinds of employment that you can find in the country. The real difficulty of the position is this: Supposing you exclude the whole of the outworkers, then, you make the Act practically unworkable. Suppose you exclude part of the outworkers, the married women, at the present moment, in my own Constituency, at all events in a great number of cases, that would meet our desires, though I do not think it would do so permanently: it would only meet them temporarily. If you exclude the married women, as the hon. Member said, you make a preferential class. But there is still another alternative, namely, that you should make it voluntary to come into the Act. If you make it voluntary to come into the Act, again you create a preferential class—again you create a free labour market, as against a taxed labour market. I see only one way out of it—though I recognise that it is a very great and a very new amendment of the Act, and I would not submit it except under very special circumstances—and it is that you should give the outworkers in rural areas the option of coming under the Act or not coming under the Act; and, in order that you should not create a preferential class, you should throw the liability for the contributions of the employers upon the Exchequer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss Amendments of the Act. This Bill, which we are now discussing, is the Appropriation Bill, which appropriates certain moneys to certain Services. The hon. Member is entitled to criticise the manner in which those Services are carried out, but he is not entitled to suggest Amendments of the existing Act of Parliament.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: I am very sorry to have gone beyond your ruling, Sir. What I intended to say was that the Commissioners are empowered to issue an Order, and that Order may have a very wide scope. Under it they would be empowered to exclude, I believe, all outworkers. In their special interests I should very much like to see that Order put in force, for the following reasons: We are now told that in the autumn we are to have a great campaign about the land. We are told that the object of that campaign is to do good to the agricultural labourer. But the greatest good you can do the agricultural labourer is to raise his wages, and, if this Order were put in

  2751
  force, I do not pretend that it would raise the wages of the agricultural labourer, but at all events it would keep the wages up. The wife who is now earning money, if that Order were put in force, would not then be thrown out of employment, and the wages which she receives are only supplementary of her husband's earnings.
  I wish to say a few words upon Pamphlets A and B. Under those two pamphlets both the outworkers and the employer receive very hard measure. It is almost like asking a rat if it will choose an American or a German trap into which to go. Pamphlet A is in accordance with the Act. Under Pamphlet A the employer has to pay a poll tax of three pennies on every woman he employs. It cannot be denied that where people are only employed for a few hours, or for a short time, they will concentrate labour into few hands, and create a condition of unemployment. Under Pamphlet B, or the unit system, only women earning the full amount will be fully insured, and any woman who earns 10s. a week, when 13s. is the unit, would only make thirty-eight contributions during the year. In this case what would happen to the employer, and what approved society would be willing to accept the woman as a member? It does seem to me that the Insurance Act has been made too much of a party measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—too much of a party measure by hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite. If those Gentlemen had really looked at it from the point of view of their old speeches, if they had looked on the Act as being made for the people and not the people made for the Act, then the condition of things would have been very different from what it is now. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty said that justice, whether to forty people or to 40,000, was justice, and justice could not be looked at in numbers. Therefore, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, the author of this Act, to consider the fact that the people who are going to be thrown out of employment in the West of England are very poor people; they have not the advantage of votes, but they do deserve every consideration at the right hon. Gentleman's hands. I very much hope, therefore, that he will persuade the Commissioners to grant some such order as that of which we have been speaking to-night.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: I desire to raise the question of the method of appoint-
  2752
  ments by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, owing to conflicting answers given by the Secretary to the Treasury, and, unless the matter is cleared up, there will be more and more uneasiness than has already arisen. I would not have brought this matter forward if it were not that there is considerable ill-feeling throughout the whole length and breadth of the Principality. Already some of the most responsible organisations in Wales have had to rise in revolt and give public expression to their fears in regard to the appointments made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners. I think I can explain how this uneasiness in the public mind has arisen. First of all, the Secretary to the Treasury will remember that some time ago the Welsh Insurance Commissioners appointed intelligence officers without any kind of examination, and therefore, of course, not according to the system which was laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer one evening in this House, and, I think, laid down subsequently by an Order in Council. The Secretary to the Treasury explained to me at that time, in answer to a question, that it was a matter of urgency, but the people in Wales who had noticed the advertisement, and had observed that the proceedings in the matter were prolonged for many weeks, thought that the excuse as to urgency was no excuse at all, and that there was ample time for holding some kind of competitive examination, or something which would have opened these appointments to the public. The Secretary to the Treasury informed us that both the intelligence officers were able to express themselves effectively in Welsh. I am informed on reliable authority that this is not true of one of them. After all, the point is that it is not like a tourist going about in Welsh districts with a phrase book from which he may select a phrase or two when he wants to make a purchase, but it is a case where the officer should be able to express himself readily in the Welsh language and be really master of the Welsh language, which is one understood by a great number of the people. There has arisen since then what I think is a great public scandal in connection with the appointment of the Chief Inspector, a very important office under the Welsh Commissioners. I have here a White Paper that was drawn up on the recommendation of a special body of the Commissioners, the bulk of them being English Commissioners, and I find that

  2753
  they recommended with regard to chief inspectors the following:—
  "We regard it as desirable that chief inspectors should be officers of exceptional experience in the organisation and control of the outdoor staff, and we accordingly recommend that those posts should be filled up by selections from amongst officers serving on the staffs of the existing public Departments who have had such experience."
  We find in the Principality that a man was appointed who did not have any of this experience of organisation, or of anything approaching it at all. He was a man of no experience of that kind, and he had never been in any public Department, nor had he any experience whatever of managing an outdoor staff. It happened that the gentleman who was appointed was a very able man, and, though he had not experience of the kind required, he acquitted himself with considerable ability. But that is not the point. It is an obnoxious part that one has to raise a question of this kind, when one has to deal with one's friends, and when a position has been created which is not pleasant for anybody. The whole of Wales is seething with suspicion or uneasiness, and it is the duty of some one in the Welsh party to have the whole thing out. The most serious matter in regard to this chief inspector was that it was discovered later on that he had absolutely no knowledge at all of the Welsh language. I am going to explain the necessity for that in a moment. It should have been unnecessary for me to explain it from the point of view of Welshmen, because this very Report, devoted to Welshmen and drafted on pure business lines, says:—
  "In Wales and Ireland there are districts in which a knowledge of Welsh and Gaelic will he indispensable."
  If it is going to be indispensable in regard to any kind of officer it surely ought to be indispensable in the case of a man who is going about fulfilling the duties dealt with in this particular circular, the duty of calling upon people to examine their cards, and to ask them questions, and matters of that character. The chief inspector who has been appointed, and is not able to speak the Welsh language, can do nothing of the kind, and he is absolutely incompetent to fulfil the duties. As a result of the exposure of this matter several of the more prominent authorities in Wales raised a great outcry, and this gentleman resigned. I know reasons have been given—and I have no cause to disbelieve them—that his resignation was on private grounds. But how are you going to disabuse the minds of the public, and persuade them that coincidences of
  2754
  this kind have not something behind them, and that there is not some connection between the two events? What has happened since? There was in the office of the Commissioners an assistant secretary, a very competent man, and a man who had a long experience in Civil Service in public offices, and against whose appointment nobody of course in Wales raised any objection. On the resignation of the other man they have now promoted the assistant secretary to the post of chief inspector. If the assistant secretary was a competent man why did they not appoint him in the first instance, instead of promoting him now after creating all this public uneasiness, and what I have ventured to describe as a scandal. In filling the post of assistant secretary I observe that there is no condition laid down at all with regard to Welsh. Before I deal with that question I pass to the question of auditors, and here I have to deal with conflicting answers which the Secretary to the Treasury has given from time to time. I asked him a question on 13th June whether an examination was going to be held in Wales for the auditors who would be required by the Welsh Institute of Commissioners and he replied, "Yes," that there would be an examination for the candidates at a centre in Wales. When I asked him two or three days ago when an examination was going to be held in Wales he informed me that no examination was to be held at all. He did not remember having told me that an examination was to be held, and I think he must have been grievously misinformed by the Commissioners, thus putting those applicants into a condition of mind worse than the average condition of mind of applicants, which Members of Parliament find not very pleasant to deal with as a rule. Then, again, the Financial Secretary informed me that the Welsh Commissioners had an idea that it was unnecessary to require a knowledge of Welsh from the auditors. I take again the special White Paper of the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the appointment of an audit staff, and I find that that Committee, not one of whom is a Welshman, I will guarantee, by the appearance of the names, state:—"We recommend that about one-half of the persons appointed for service in Wales should be able to speak and write the Welsh language." After that I am very much surprised to find that the Financial Secretary says that there is no doubt amongst the Welsh Commissioners as to this matter.

  2755
  I said I was going to make one point, and that is, to make it clear that it is absolutely necessary in a large proportion of these appointments to have men who can speak and write Welsh competently. Already the insurance committee of the county of Carnarvon has decided that all its transactions shall be in the Welsh language, all its minutes, books, correspondence, etc. When the correspondence of the Carnarvonshire County Committee reaches the Insurance Office in Cardiff, what is the good of your English auditor or your English inspector? He will be absolutely incompetent, and you might as well have a Chinaman there as an Englishman. I must warn the Secretary to the Treasury that it is not for any English Minister or any Commissioners to have opinions on this question at all. The Welsh people have a perfect right if they like to conduct their proceedings in the language that suits them best. It is for them to do so and to find competent officers, as plenty can be found, to deal with the people as they desire. I have to warn him that whilst we are quite willing to be reasonable in the whole matter and to take steps that would make the Act effective, he runs the danger and the Insurance Commissioners of an outcry that would put him and the Commissioners into a hopeless difficulty. The people only want a lead. I am sure I would have no difficulty in raising a boycott of English, and getting every friendly society and every insurance committee in Wales to conduct all their proceedings in Welsh, and to write no letter to the office in Cardiff but in Welsh, and that would very soon bring the Commissioners to realise the position. I am not going to recommend anything like that, but I want the Secretary to the Treasury to make the position clear. I take it that personally the Secretary to the Treasury agrees with the views of most of us in thinking that in a small country like Wales, with the number of candidates necessarily limited, that it is far better to have the selections made by absolutely open examination.
  There was a suggestion a short time ago to set up a kind of academic appointments board. We killed that for the reason that it appeared that it was going to put restrictions which would not leave a fair and open field for candidates. If I am right in thinking that the Secretary to the Treasury is of opinion that it will be much better to make these appointments as the result of a free, open, competitive
  2756
  system, then may I make one suggestion to get over this Welsh difficulty? We do not want, of course, incompetent officers just because the Welsh language stands in the way. If, therefore, a Welsh paper were added to the subjects of examination for which marks were given, and if the persons who could not take that paper and who lost those marks were equal to the others in the result of the examination, we Welsh people would be quite willing to put up with the more efficient and more competent men. I have to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to reassure us on this point, and to make quite clear whether this examination for auditors is to be held in Wales or not, so that we shall not be kept in doubt any longer. The Act was received by the Welsh people without any of those prejudices and objections that have arisen in England. We have got no tax resistors, and the Act has been in other respects a success, and carried out efficiently by the Commissioners. The only thing that has militated against the Act is the mass of opinion amongst the Welsh people that things are not straight with regard to the appointments. The right hon. Gentleman must remember that, however good an Act of Parliament is, if its administration is bad, then the whole thing is branded as bad by the people. This is a serious matter for those of us who have been recommending the Act to the Welsh people. I hope therefore that the right hon. Gentleman will reassure the Welsh people that henceforth everything will be beyond reproach in these appointments, and he will then probably have no cause to be troubled in respect of the Act by the mass of the Welsh people.
  Sir J. D. REES: My information from Cardiff coincides with that of the hon. Gentleman, that there is great dissatisfaction with the appointments made, and still more, perhaps, with the appointments which they think will be made. An officer who has been drawing 30s. per week has been put temporarily to act as assistant secretary, with the idea, as is locally thought, of eventually giving him that appointment, in which he will be able to supervise officers in the Civil Service, drawing from £500 to £700 per year. I do not wish to pursue that subject further, but I desire to go back to the outworkers. Perhaps the time has come to take off the gloves and point the moral with lace, not the first time lace and point have been connected. I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset

  2757
  (Mr. Aubrey Herbert) said regarding the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Peel). I think he accomplished the impossible in giving us the first really lucid and clear exposition of the principle underlying these cases, and I shall have less to say myself, because he dealt so clearly with the matter. There is not only the case of gloves, but there is the Nottinghom lace trade, which is perhaps the greatest trade affected in respect of outworkers. The Secretary to the Treasury has dealt in his reply to me, I will not say cavalierly with this question, as, of course, it is his duty to think the Act is good business, but I am very dissatisfied myself with the answers I have received on this subject, because he has invariably suggested that points are raised rather to disparage the Act than for the purpose of getting assistance for those who are affected by its introduction. My hon. Friend showed very clearly the vacillation that obtains with regard to outworkers. The Secretary to the Treasury apparently does not heed the fact that the old and infirm and those who can do little work, are being thrown out of work wholesale by the introduction of this Act, which necessarily leads to concentration in order to avoid one of the cardinal vices of the Act, which I think is absolutely over full of vices, and that is that the tax is levied upon the number of people employed, making it absolutely necessary for those engaged in keen competition to reduce the number of people they employ, and thus get rid of the old and infirm and the persons who do little work.
  It will hardly be believed that in the Nottingham lace trade up to the introduction of the Act, and, indeed, up to this very minute, nobody knows whether the Insurance Commissioners are going to take the middle woman or the manufacturer as the employer. It should most obviously be the middle woman, as the manufacturer has nothing to do with the matter. Doubt exists up to this moment upon that all important point. My hon. Friend referred to the question of the unit of work. I suppose in most cases they will accept scheme B in respect of lace, and not scheme A. The sum of 11s. is the amount given as what the outworkers will be able to earn for lace finishing in Nottingham; but not all can earn that, and a small proportion therefore will be entitled to full sickness benefit. That, and the fact that they will be thrown out of work, are the great grievances they have to meet
  2758
  in connection with the introduction of this Act. As regards the employers I must confess, from what I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, that it seems to me the sufferings of the employers weigh rather lightly with him, as with his chief. Where the unit is proved to have been unfair, why does not the employer get some rebate. It is obvious he gets no rebate, as the money goes into hotch-potch for any purpose the Commissioners may think proper. Supposing there were many of those workers earning high wages by obtaining work from different employers, such persons might pay nothing themselves but yet have 10d. or 1s. placed to their credit, which is rank injustice. The right hon. Gentleman cannot justify it, but I suppose he will say it is in the Act. If it is in the Act it is an injustice, and should be amended. As my hon. Friend has explained the alternatives under the A and B system I do not propose to go fully into them.
  The Trade Boards Act, which is enforced in respect of these industries, fixed the minimum which could be earned by a worker employed for a given number of hours per week, at, for lace finishing 11s. and hosiery 8s. 9d., and so on. If B is adopted one full contribution must be paid for every unit of work done in a fortnight. When this question came to be discussed in Nottingham, lecturers were sent down, but they found themselves quite unable to explain. Having spoken very fully on it, they left all those who heard them in greater perplexity than even they had been before they had heard their explanation. There were two of these lecturers, and at the end of their explanation the greatest indignation was expressed at the effect of the Act on the poorest workers concerned. One of the chief manufacturers there immediately faced these lecturers and said, "Will no rebate be allowed for overpayment?" and they said "No." Then a question arose with regard to a woman working for two or three firms, and it was asked whether the unit would count for each employer, and the answer was "Yes." Again—
  "Each employer has a perfectly separate account for each outworker, and as many women have several children who may be doing a little, if you have to pay 5d. for each outworker, the employer might have to pay from 10d. to 1s. 0½d."
  The answer was—
  "Yes; that is how the regulations are."
  Can the right hon. Gentleman show any elementary principles of justice towards

  2759
  the employers in such a state of affairs? One of the audience referred to the fact that it was necessary to give a year's notice to change from method A to method B, and asked whether the only way to get out of the words of the contract was to dismiss the worker? The lecturer replied, "Yes, apparently so. I had not thought of that." That is the comfort they have to give to an industry which is turned inside out and upside down by the introduction of this Act. There are hundreds of women in the lace trade who earn very small amounts. Probably their average earnings will not amount to more than half a unit a fortnight. It is these poor people who are suffering from this insurance tax. Others are doing well. Those who are not poor are not injuriously affected. It is always the poor who suffer, and it is so in this case. The lecturers were asked whether the employers would have to pay this sum with no benefit to anybody? The answer was—
  "The money will be paid into a fund which will be dealt with as the Commissioners decide."
  These unfortunate people do not yet know who is their employer. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman told us that he thought that in many cases it was the middle-woman, but he added that in each case the matter would be decided on its merits. That introduces the element of uncertainty into a question of which certainty should be an absolutely necessary attribute. One of the employers said that all those people who now earn only a little money will not be allowed to earn it, and instead of being a benefit to the people in this trade the Act must necessarily be a hardship. That is the opinion arrived at on that occasion by those concerned. Some 2,000 outworkers are interested in this matter. I confess that I have some difficulty in making a recommendation. Perhaps that is not my business. I do not know that I am prepared to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. A. Herbert), but I certainly think that those who are sent down to explain the Act should be armed with authority so that they might give positive information as to the position of these outworkers, and that some arrangement should be made whereby, instead of concentration leading to their wholesale dismissal, these poorer people should be continued in the occupation in which for so long they have been engaged. A further question that I asked the right hon. Gentleman was whether he was aware that
  2760
  lodging and boarding-house keepers who could not afford to pay wages of more than £10 or £12 a year were dismissing their servants and engaging immature girls under sixteen years of age, whom they would dismiss in their turn when they reached that age, in order to avoid payment of the tax of 13s. a year.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of any such dismissals, and he thought that there was no supply of people under sixteen years of age who would take the places of those who were dismissed. Having been thus challenged, I must give the House one or two cases to prove that what I said was right. There is the case of Mr. More, Heron Gate, Brentwood, Essex, who has dismissed his charwoman because he does not care to pay the insurance tax, and has secured the services of a girl aged less than fifteen years. There is the case of Mr. Hughes, of 71, Holland Road, Buxton, who has discharged two servants, one male and one female, on account of the insurance tax, and is about to dismiss his remaining female servant and engage a girl under fifteen to escape the tax. Another case is that of Mrs. Paston, of 31, Airthrie Road, Goodmayes, who is dismissing her maid because the maid refuses to submit to the deduction of 3d. from her wages on the ground that the so-called National Insurance is a lick and a promise, and that though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to fetch the doctor, she will not pay until the doctor arrives. These are just a few cases, and I give them because of the light-hearted manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has received the questions which have been put to him on the subject.
  Take, then, the case of people engaged in laundries. There is the case put forward by no less an authority than Mr. John Murray in the "Times" two or three days ago. In that case a laundress says that she is compelled to pay 4s. a week for the fourteen women and two men whom she employs. She cannot put up her prices because her customers are hit all round by the numerous new taxes invented by the right hon. Gentleman's chief. As in the case of the outworkers and maidservants, laundry employés are being displaced wholesale on account of this tax. In this particular industry no less than 50 per cent. of the takings goes in wages, and the people concerned who are so injuriously affected deserve the best consideration of this House. I also asked

  2761
  the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that agriculturists were exclaiming against the injustice of the manner in which they came under this Insurance Tax. The right hon. Gentleman, however, gave me no satisfaction on the point. I have come from the county of Berkshire this morning, and, as a result of inquiries that I have made, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in that county there is a very strong feeling. Ninety per cent. of the fanners of the United Kingdom have incomes of less than £160 a year. The Insurance Tax represents 6 per cent. on the average farmer's income, and a tax of a shilling an acre on agricultural land. Is that a matter to be lightly put aside? An impost of this description is really a tax levied on oats, wheat, barley, beef and mutton, and it amounts to a preference in favour of Canadian wheat, Russian barley, and beef from Argentina. I have a letter from a gentleman at Court Farm, Billingshurst. He read the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me, and he is very indignant. He says:—
  "I have attended two markets locally and hold the signatures from those alone of seventy-three farmers pledging themselves to refuse to carry out an Act so unjust to our agriculturists. On Wednesday, the 31st, I attend a market at Horsham in the morning and Steyning in the afternoon, solely at the request of local fanners, when I know the signatures will exceed a hundred. … I hare to-night written Mr. Burghs, of Newbury, asking him to forward yon proof, as three weeks ago he had the signatures of something like 2,000 farmers from Berks, Hants, Wilts, and Oxon, and who were carrying on a similar campaign."
  These are very great industries, and I submit that they are entitled to greater consideration when questions are asked regarding the dissatisfaction that is felt with the introduction of the Act and the manner in which it presses upon different classes. After all, the Act is not a law of the Modes and Persians, but a law of the British Parliament, which is made to be altered, and, if it happens to be a law which the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not like, such as the Education Act, to be broken.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes to criticise an Act, he must do it at the proper time. On this occasion he can only criticise the administration.
  Sir J. D. REES: I apologise. I thought that it might pass as an illustration. I assume that any remarks by way of comparison between the attitude of the resistance to this Insurance Act and the attitude of resistance to the Education Act, 1902, would be equally out of order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think they would have any relevance to any Vote of Supply, and this Bill simply appropriates the Votes of Supply for particular purposes.
  Sir J. D. REES: Then I will not pursue the point further than to say that I understand that in France, when a similar measure was before the Legislature, on account of the objections made, the compulsory Clauses were withdrawn. Another matter to which I wish to refer is the refusal of the Prime Minister to receive a deputation from the Employers' Parliamentary Association. In view of the ruling just given, I doubt whether that would be in order; therefore I will only say it seems to me a very regrettable fact that that deputation should not have been received. I may further mention that, in consequence of this Act, servants all over the country have been driven to arrange with their employers to receive quarterly instead of weekly payments. That is a very great hardship to servants. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the light-hearted manner in which he has received questions on this subject, that in every house in the Kingdom strife and trouble have arisen through the introduction of this Act. Amongst domestic servants and agriculturists, in the lace trade of Nottingham, and in the glove trade of Somersetshire and elsewhere, there is the utmost confusion. I hope it is not irrelevant to point out the extreme hardships which are being occasioned by the Act, and thereby to help along that happy day when it will be subjected to wholesale revision.
  Mr. SPEAKER: As I have pointed out to the hon. Member, this is not the time to criticise an Act of Parliament or to suggest Amendments. He can criticise the administration, if he has anything to say against the Insurance Commissioners, their leaflets, pamphlets, and so on. But what he is asking for now is an Amendment of the Act, and that is out of order in the discussion on this Bill.
  8.0 P.M.
  Sir J. D. REES: I regret, Sir, having erred. I will not do it, but I should have liked to criticise the leaflets concerned. They make confusion worse confounded. The amount of literature which has been spread abroad at great cost to the taxpayer has not made these matters clear. I am in order, I take it, in pointing out that the

  2763
  administration of this Act, since its introduction, has caused the maximum amount of disturbance to trade, and of hardship to those engaged in various trades. The right hon. Gentleman thought fit to rebuke me—I raised no objection—for some remarks I made in asking a question. But I am a perfectly free agent in this matter. I was not a Member of this House when the Act was passed, though I had been familiar with it from its introduction, and have seen how it has been received. I submit again that it becomes the Government to behave with the utmost tenderness to those affected by its introduction, and to remember that on all sides it is producing very great hardship. There are quarters, no doubt, so the right hon. Gentleman says, in which the Act is welcomed with effusion. All I can say is I have not seen them.
  The administration of the Act by the Commissioners does not inspire me with confidence. I know they have a difficult task, and one which no one could accomplish. I have nothing to say against the Commissioners individually. They are able men, deserving of the utmost respect. But the right hon. Gentleman and his chief ought to consider most carefully every case brought before them, and not meet them by disbelief. They would then readily see the great disturbance that the Act is producing in every house, in every trade, in the United Kingdom. It is causing difficulties in every trade between employer and employed, and in every quarter. I beseech him to give such instructions to the Insurance Commissioners as will induce them to consider the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always considering the poor to no purpose. Somebody else might be allowed to consider them in an effectual manner. It is really the case that they are being hit, as I pointed out, and not merely in the Nottingham lace trade—I come back to that because it is an exceedingly good case and the one with which I am most concerned. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to send instructions to his Commissioners as will mitigate the hardships occasioned by the introduction of this Act.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The serious point raised this afternoon was that raised by my hon. Friend behind me as to the question of the administration of the Act as it has affected outworkers. It is very evident from the speech that we have
  2764
  just listened to, and from the observations of Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has really nothing to say about the administration of the Act; his controversy is with the Act itself. We are always glad to carry on that controversy when we can do so under the rules of order, but we cannot do so at the present time. In so far as the administration has affected the coming into operation of the Act, I think almost everyone in the House will agree with me in the statement that it is a matter of great surprise that an Act of such social magnitude should be put into operation with so little social friction. Certainly in all the lengthy months which I, to the best of my ability, have given to work in connection with the Commission in building up a system of administration I never conceived that an Act affecting 14,000,000 of people, and of necessity put into operation suddenly and at a given date, would have been put into operation with so little friction, with so little uncertainty, and with on the whole such general acceptance of the conditions which have been laid down by the Commissioners. One or two difficulties which were foreseen long before the Act was introduced—they are inherent in any system of national insurance. Everyone might have known that in the beginning of the Act there would be statements of dismissal of servants, of the rearrangement of the hours of charwomen, and of that kind of treatment that we have heard of from hon. Members. After all, how few have been these cases. They are likely I think to be fewer when the misunderstandings which have been spread concerning the Act, give place to the true facts. I was perfectly right in both statements made in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham. There is no large supply of available boy and girl labour between the ages of fourteen and sixteen which can be sucked up from other industries.
  It was because that was realised by a Parliament in which the hon Member was not concerned, that it was agreed that there would be no danger in not imposing the employers' contribution upon children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The demand for children of this age immensely exceeds the supply. I think no one need be apprehensive because, it may be, that a lady has dismissed a servant, and a particular young person is engaged in her place, that there will be any general kind of replacement such as that which has been foretold by hon.

  2765
  Gentlemen opposite. In anger or owing to misunderstanding some woman may perhaps dismiss her charwoman and try to do without her. Such people will very soon find that the charwomen are worth what they have been paying them and three-pence a week extra for their insurance. In a very short time they will not only be too glad to see that this most deserving class of woman, forming a class of insured persons who will be able to derive the same benefits of the Act as women who, more fortunate than themselves, are in regular employment.
  I must ask the hon. Member behind me to draw a distinction, which I should certainly draw myself, between questions of policy and questions of individuals. In the response to an appeal from all sides of the House last December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down the position that the Government would in no way interfere with the discretion of the Insurance Commissioners in the appointment of individuals. It was agreed that that so far was the best way to avoid any suggestion of political corruption. Under these circumstances, if he asks me to interfere with the individual selection of those chosen by any of the four National Commissions, I must respectfully refuse to do so. The Commissions have been appointed under sanction of Parliament. They have been given the choice of their individual staffs, and the only way in which any interference could take place in the matter would be by so flagrant an example of political corruption that the Commissioners would have proved themselves unfit for their duties, and therefore would have to be removed. When the hon. Gentleman comes to his other question, I find myself largely agreeing with him. The Mowatt Report recognised at the beginning that there would have to be appointments made outside examinations—appointments made on the ground of urgency, and appointments given to persons who had special experience of trade union and friendly society work, and that in these cases, the persons being of considerable age, would not be suitable to go into competition with young men fresh from the universities. They recognised that the fewer such appointments the better on the whole. They recognised also, and the Welsh Commissioners recognised also, that in future the normal method of selecting a staff of young men and young women suitable for examination purposes would be through open
  2766
  examination. That, I hope, will be the method adopted by all the four Commissions.
  As to the question of speaking Welsh, I must confess I am in ignorance as to the particular qualification, except from the information I have received from the Welsh Commissioners. Nor should I like to define what effective speaking in Welsh should be. I am not frightened by the universal boycotting of English in the country of which the hon. Gentleman is so distinguished a Member. I believe the Members of the Welsh Commission are not less blind to the facts of the case, or any less patriotic in their desire than my hon. Friend himself to encourage the Welsh language. I know they are making an effort to see that the needs are met of a class of the population in Wales who necessarily will have to carry on intercourse with the officers of the Commission in the Welsh tongue. Once or twice the hon. Gentleman seemed to me to confuse the staff of the Audit with the staff of the Commission. The Audit is entirely under the Treasury and the staff of the Commission is under the Welsh Commissioners. We are endeavouring to get in the Audit a certain number of Welsh-speaking persons, and in this and in the Treasury staff the conditions will be similar to those, for instance, in the Home Office in connection with the inspectors. Men must be promoted to all parts of the United Kingdom. It would be very unfair to those who are in Wales if we were to draw a line around them, and say, "You are in the Welsh-speaking portions and confined to Wales, and you shall have no right of promotion elsewhere." That is the difficulty we felt with the inspectors of factories and mines; but I think the hon. Member will find that the matter will be met as satisfactorily in this case as it was in that. I should like to express my thanks for the most moderate and businesslike speeches which have been made by several hon. Members on the other side.
  I was glad to hear the hon. Member for South Somerset say that the time for controversy was over, and that the time for business had arrived; that there had been to much party feeling and party capital in connection with this measure. I shall be delighted if the hon. Member will convey that expression of his opinion to his friends in Manchester. While I quite recognise that spirit and the temper shown by the hon. Member who spoke especially for the outworkers in the country districts, I trust to be able to furnish some method

  2767
  under the Act which will relieve the apprehensions which he rightly said are being felt. I do not want to be led into a general discussion of the difference between the outworkers and factory workers. I agree with him that a distinction may be drawn between such outwork as prevails in Somerset and such outwork as prevails in the East of London. I should be very reluctant either to drive the outworkers of Yeovil or Cornwall into factories or to do anything to militate against the village industries of that district. In fact, I think the whole future of agriculture in Ireland, and perhaps in this country too, is bound up with giving encouragement rather than discouragement to village industries on some such system as prevails in South Germany at the present time. On the other hand, it would have been I think against the wishes of everyone in this House and in all quarters who are familiar with the conditions of a good deal of outwork in big cities—certainly against the wishes of the Noble Lord the Member for South Nottingham, who is so much interested in this matter—if we had done anything to encourage the growth or establishment of sweated industries, of clothing industries, in the alleys and slums of big towns, and so lessened the good effect of the National Insurance Act. I only emphasise what I said again and again in the Debates upon the Bill, and what everyone who has any knowledge of national insurance schemes realises, that far the most difficult question under a national insurance scheme is this question of outworkers. We have to proceed largely tentatively and experimentally, and to watch very carefully the effects of the best methods we could devise at the moment. I do not in the least exclude possible variation in the future if the methods by which we have attempted to deal with it prove impossible and if better methods are needed. The idea of amendment of the Bill I should not exclude from the view of the Commissioners or of the Government, but at the present time I cannot possibly see that any such amendment could be useful. I am glad to have the very generous recognition from both hon. Gentlemen opposite connected with this matter, that it was impossible to make a distinction on the report of the Hatch Committee between married and unmarried outworkers. Directly you find you are dealing with units of work
  2768
  instead of a time measure, and therefore you may have persons, married and single, who earn exactly the same small amount of 3s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. a week, and discrimination would mean advantage for the employer who employed the married woman, I think the distinction becomes impossible. Therefore in any consideration we have to bring out the system which the Hatch Committee devised and which is in force under special Order but is still open to amendment. We have to agree that we must take all the outworkers, married and single, in similar circumstances.
  Considerable negotiations have proceeded by the inspectors we have sent down to the districts of which the hon. Member opposite has a special knowledge. I understand, but I am not quite certain, and if the hon. Gentleman will put a question to me later on I will give him an answer, that by general agreement on all sides the unit of work has been established in these districts. That is so, I believe, but I have only just received the report from my inspector upon the subject. I think it would be well if we could come to some particular scheme for the workers in that condition, where as a matter of fact it does involve difficulties and where it cannot be made to work to the satisfaction of all classes concerned. On the other hand, I do not wish in the least to exclude from our consideration the suggested evidence by the hon. Member for Taunton. It is the first time I have heard the suggestion as between machine work and handwork. I am not sure how they come into competition, but I think it is well worthy of consideration. I am not quite sure whether he wants another system with smaller benefits. That is really the effect of the system devised by the Hatch Committee. It means smaller benefits through the recognition of the fact that the outworkers who earn only a small amount and do only a small amount of work would be more or less permanently in arrear. I do not think in these circumstances there would be difficulty in getting them into friendly societies. The friendly societies will recognise that they will get smaller benefits to set against the fact that they are not paying the full contribution.
  Mr. PEEL: Which societies?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The only one I can remember at the moment is the Women's Trade Union Society, and I am not sure that applies to rural outworkers as much

  2769
  as to the town outworkers. But on the whole question of the outworkers, I do not want even to exclude as a possible course the elimination of all those doing that particular kind of work if it was found desirable in that particular locality. I am only suggesting that the very friendly advances made should be followed out, and if the hon. Gentlemen concerned would make it their business to come together in conference with myself and the Insurance Commissioners and our inspectors, I will certainly guarantee to carry out the promise which the hon. Member for South Somerset has mentioned, that because people are few in number they shall not suffer any kind of injustice. As to the town outworkers, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who raised that question has been following recent events in Nottingham. He quoted from lectures given by inspectors a considerable time back. I understand that the Nottingham problem which is a great difficulty has gone very far along the lines of settlement. I agree when the Act came into operation very considerable uncertainty was felt, and very considerable objection was made as to some of the provisions in connection with outworkers. In fact, from the first report we received we realised that Nottingham would probably be the most difficult problem we had to face in putting the Act into operation. We had very considerable assistance from the Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). We sent down inspectors who have been practically living there for the last few weeks. They visited all the work people and the employers, and I am told that these gentlemen are beginning to take a most hopeful view of the matter. They believe that a settlement of a unit of work can be arrived at and a full explanation of this new system of dealing with outworkers will result in a system being reached satisfactory to both parties. They recognise, and the employers recognise, that a very great effort has been made to meet their difficulties in connection with this new system. The thing could not have been done except for the new system arranged in consequence of the Act. I believe all parties are willing to give it a fair trial; they now understand it, and almost all social workers familiar with any place like Nottingham, would regard it as a calamity if the outworkers were struck out of the scheme; and partly because the getting out of the outworkers would necessarily mean more and more work passing from
  2770
  the factories into homes not always altogether suitable for the work done there.
  I pass now from the outworkers' problem with the frank observation that I wish I were as confident of the smooth and satisfactory working of the Act in this case as I am in the case of the other problems, which hon. Gentlemen opposite brought before me, for instance, the problem of the agricultural worker. I think it is a very difficult question; I think those who devised this scheme, complicated though it is, deserve the thanks of the outworkers, for having devised a scheme which certainly baffled Parliament. It is an improvement on the old scheme. The Order is not yet confirmed, but when it is confirmed I ask that it should be given a few months' trial, and I think we shall certainly see the advantage of it to the main body of the workers throughout the country, quite apart from the question whether certain limited classes will or will not be benefited. Then it will be time to propose a modification of the special Orders, and, if necessary, a modification of the Act in order to meet the possibilities suggested.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am sorry I was not present when the Secretary to the Treasury spoke, but I would like to ask him what is the system of selection which the Treasury has laid down for the appointment of auditors, and how are those appointments made? What is the special process adopted for determining between one candidate and another? I would also like to know whether the auditors in Ireland will be responsible to the Commissioners or to the Treasury in England? For the information of the right hon. Gentleman I may say that there is the greatest possible indignation in Ireland at the method by which these selections have been made. It seems to me that the auditors who were promised appointments are hostile to the Insurance Act, and are almost entirely Tories. It is the usual thing for the Liberal party to confer all their patronage on Tories; but those who want to see the Act sympathetically administered have a right to make a protest. I think we owe it to our constituencies in Ireland that this matter ought to be raised here.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The auditors are being appointed on the system laid down in the Report which my hon. Friend has read. Candidates are chosen possessing certain qualifications, most of whom are being subjected to a limited examination. They have been selected by a special Committee, and they are not servants of

  2771
  the National Insurance Commissioners. The public department under which they serve is the Treasury, and the auditors will be interchangeable, through promotion and other reasons, between the four nations.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me who is the Treasury? Is it a Treasury clerk who conducts this examination? Does he call up every competent candidate who has applied or has he simply selected a few men of Tory influence?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: An impartial Committee has been appointed which has dealt with these selections. The examination is held by the Civil Service Commission.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Who makes the selection from the list of applications?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Committee of Selection.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Then it is the good old system that exists at the Treasury to give everything to the Tories.

  CITY OF LONDON FIRE (CELLULOID DANGERS).
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I wish to draw attention to the evidence given at the inquest upon the victims of the disastrous fire in the City of London in which eight unfortunate girls lost their lives. I do not desire to score a political point or to insinuate that the Home Office was in any way responsible for that loss of life. I take up this question in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of allaying the great apprehension there must be in the minds of those who work upon celluloid that their lives are in danger. There is no doubt that the present unsatisfactory state of the Regulations is a serious menace to those who work in celluloid. I think Miss Constance Smith, who appeared at the inquest, is in a position to speak with authority on this matter. The first point which she emphasises is that it should be impossible for anybody to turn a harmless business like dressmaking into a business where thousands of sheets of celluloid are stored without giving notice to anybody responsible for the safety of life in the case of fire. The next point is that it is possible in a congested area like the City of London to store a vast amount of this very explosive material and to accumulate a kind of magazine without taking any special precautions for the extinguishing of fire in case a fire breaks
  2772
  out. Instead of adequate hoses in this last fatal fire, there was only one bucket provided which the workmen used for washing purposes. Over the window which was the only means of escape, there was no notice, and that is a point specially for the Home Office. It is the duty of the Home Office to see that such notices are put up. The district inspector of factories said that he had no doubt it was the duty of the Home Office to see to that matter, but he said that with his present staff it is quite impossible to do that because they were not able to get round.
  During the Home Office debate my hon. Friends and myself raised the question of the adequacy of the inspectorship. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that this loss of life was a good deal due to the fact that owing to inadequate inspectorship there was no notice placed over the means of escape. Another point is that in regard to articles made from celluloid there are no existing regulations. There is an excellent memorandum drawn up by Dr. Whitelegge, but the adoption in the recommendation of that memorandum is not obligatory upon anybody, and the particular manufacturer concerned in this fire had never heard of those regulations. Not long ago the Home Office said there was no need for special regulations in dealing with celluloid; but the London County Council were so impressed with the need of special regulations in regard to this subject that only lately they applied to Parliament; but the regulations they desired were not passed by the Special Committee. I think we ought to have special regulations to stop the using of naked lights where celluloid is used, and it is nothing short of a scandal that such lights should have been used. There is no question that if the girls working on the premises where the fire occurred had received fire drill this loss of life would not have occurred. These are the special points which I want to emphasise, and I feel sure I shall receive a satisfactory and sympathetic reply from the Home Secretary, and I hope he will use his best endeavours to deal with this matter. I think that is the least he can do. This is a very sad and lamentable case which resulted in the loss of the lives of eight unfortunate girls, and it would be some small satisfaction to their parents and relatives to feel that they had not died in vain, and that the Home Office are going to adopt more stringent and vigilant regulations for the safety of workers in celluloid and other things.

  ROYAL ARSENAL, WOOLWICH (MINIMUM WAGE).
  Mr. CROOKS: The Noble Lord, with whom I fully sympathise, was good enough to emphasise the fact that the county council did try to get control over these places and were refused. I hope now we shall be able to get control over them. I want, however, to raise a question which rather affects the War Office. This House has acquiesced in the proposal that there should be a minimum wage of 24s. a week paid to the men in the Royal Arsenal and other places. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who was formerly Financial Secretary to the War Office, made a speech which has been quoted so frequently that I am afraid he will be tired of hearing it. We made a good many attempts in this House to get something like a decent minimum wage, and the hon. Gentleman in reply to an appeal of my own told us an Advisory Committee had made careful inquiries, and reported that the wage paid by good employers of work of that type was something like 25s. 6d. per week:—
  "That at once brought up the question of privileges, which I have more than once talked over with the hon. Member who raised this question. He believes, and I am rather inclined to agree with him, that it might be better to do away with our system of privileges altogether, and not to reckon privileges as having equivalent in wages. We have not done that, but we have gone a step in what he will regard as the right direction. We have left the privileges as they are, but instead of reckoning them as being equivalent to a wage of 1s. in the £1, we are going to reckon them now as only equivalent to a wage of 6d. in the £1, and therefore only as equivalent to 6d. when we are considering the figures named to us by the Committee, which is 25s. 6d.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1911, cols. 2335–6, Vol. XXII.]
  The conclusion arrived at was that these men in the Arsenal were to be paid not less than 24s. a week including sick benefit with a doctor, which were the privileges talked of. There has been a change of office two or three times since, and we have had various interpretations and now for two weeks in succession the minimum wage has been reduced by 4d. a week. If you made a contract with the men to find sick pay, surely it was your duty to pay the 4d., and not ask the men to pay it, or to deduct it from the miserable 24s. per per week which you have guaranteed over and over again. I remember the last Conservative Administration came to the conclusion that when a minimum had been fixed it should not be reduced even by compulsory holidays. This was confirmed tinder the present Liberal Administration by Lord Haldane when he was Secretary of State for War, and men who lost work
  2774
  through no fault of their own were assured of the full rate. We were told they had appropriated a sum for the express purpose of paying an increased rate of wage, and we were under the foolish belief that if any alteration were made the War Office had made provision. We were told when the increase was given that they had the. Insurance Bill in mind. The speech of the hon. Gentleman was made on 15th March, and it was not until late in May that the Insurance Act was introduced. They say the privileges are equivalent to 6d. in the £, and they have actually given 6d. in the £ to the men who receive about 30s. a week, so that the man receiving 50s. a week has had his pay increased by 1s. 6d., but they take 4d. off the men who receive 24s.
  This House has unanimously agreed the men should get not less than 24s. per week, and at the proper time it will resent your reducing that wage to pay for a benefit which you owe them. If you have entered into arrangement with the Insurance Commissioners for sick benefit and the services of a doctor very well, but you must pay the minimum wage to these men. You may argue as long as you like that the men did not understand. They did understand, and it will take all the ability of the Attorney-General and the hon. Gentlemen to make them believe they have not been done out of 4d. I agree with them. You may have said to newcomers they will not get any sick pay, but it was promised to the men whose wages were at the irreducible minimum. How many times did we hear of the difficulties of living on 24s. a week. The hon. Gentleman agreed, and the House cheered him to the echo. Yes, and these men want to know when you are going to give them their 8d. back. The fact of the matter is the War Office have made a mistake, and I do ask them to go to the Treasury and to pay these men the money which is owing to them. No argument will convince them that 4d. is not being deducted from what is their rightful wage. I do not know what the answer is going to be, but whatever it is these men will not be content until the minimum wage of 24s. per week is restored to them.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): This matter has been raised in connection with a speech I made on 15th March last year, and I would like to take the opportunity of replying on that point, although,

  2775
  if the question is pursued, the present Financial Secretary of the War Office will deal with it. I only want to deal with the matter as it is affected by what I said last year. I think we shall get it clear if we take it in two parts: first, in connection with the minimum wage, and, secondly, in connection with the question of privileges. The hon. Member, as it seems to me, is really urging that in the case of men receiving the minimum wage the Government should have said in advance of the introduction and passing of the Insurance Act that they would not only pay the 3d. and the 2d., but the 4d. as well, and that in no case where a man was receiving a less rate should that man pay his 4d.
  Mr. CROOKS: Plus sick pay.
  Mr. ACLAND: I will go into the question of privileges presently. If all Government employés, or if a particular class of Government employés, had to have 4d. paid for them as well as 5d., surely it was quite impossible for us in March last year, before the Insurance Act was passed, to announce it to the persons employed by the Government at Woolwich. If it were not done universally throughout the country, it would be an exceptional thing if we were to say in the case of these men that the Government would pay the whole 9d. instead of only 5d. How is that affected by the question of privileges and the revaluation of the privileges? My account of that is this: The men had convinced us that our own valuation of the privileges, namely, 1s. in the £ was too high. I took the line we could not split sixpences. We had either to have an equivalent of 1s., or, if we could not show there was an equivalent of 1s., then it must be reduced to the equivalent of 6d. Consequently, when it was shown the privileges were not worth 1s., I said, "We will put them at sixpence." I made it clear in a letter I wrote to the hon. Member for Woolwich that under the Insurance Act the actual value of the privileges was 8½d. or 9d., but as they were not worth 1s. we could only count them as worth 6d. The only question which presented itself to me is whether, after the deduction from the privileges likely to be given under the Insurance Act, the remaining privileges would be worth 6d. I knew perfectly well that between the date when we made that change and the coming into operation of the Insurance Act there would be considerably higher privileges than were worth 6d. offered by the Government. I
  2776
  thought that it was fair, first, considering that probably we had been taking it out of the men a bit too much, while counting the privileges as worth 1s., and knowing, as I did, that after the Insurance Act passed through this House, things would be more nearly fair to both sides. I maintain that our contract with the men was that they should get 24s., plus 6d. worth of privileges, and that, the 6d. remaining demonstrable after the passing of the Insurance Act, they should, like any other wage-earners in any other part of the country, be subject to any deduction which might be authorised under any scheme of compulsory National Insurance, unless this House directed it otherwise. I maintain we could not state then, and cannot state now, unless instructed by Parliament, that we would pay the 4d. as well as the 5d. We cannot do more than say, as we did say then, that as we can show the privileges were not worth 1s., they must be taken as worth 6d., and we were quite justified, when the Insurance Act came along, knowing the privileges would be worth 6d. or 7d. more after the Act had come into operation, in calling on the men to pay for the privileges over and above the 6d.
  Mr. CROOKS: Why does not the allowance of 6d. in the pound apply to the 24s. a week men?
  Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to call attention to several matters connected with Home Office administration. First of all, I want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that forcible feeding has gone on since the Debate in the House two or three weeks ago, and I want to ask the Home Secretary whether the time has not arrived when the Government should appoint some small or large Committee to consider the whole question. I take it that the House this afternoon, when we had that universal laugh at the statement that a woman had been discharged because she was hysterical after forcible feeding, did not display its real attitude. Whatever people's minds may be on the subject of forcible feeding the fact remains that many of these women have had to be discharged not after continual forcible feeding but after only once being forcibly fed, and this proves that this is a very disagreeable, very dangerous, and, in the view of some people, and in my own view, a very disgusting process indeed. I do not believe the House realises that a very large number of eminent doctors have put it on record

  2777
  that forcible feeding under these circumstances is really dangerous to health and to life itself. The very case the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this afternoon is a very extraordinary one. Those who take an interest in the subject will remember that in the case of a man named Ball, he, through forcible feeding or otherwise, certainly did go out of his mind while in prison, and after he had been forcibly fed, and it is on record that this man did not actually resist forcible feeding. Most of the women I am told—and they have all been examined by a most eminent physician—most of the women discharged as being liable to die or as being in a very weak state of health indeed owing to forcible feeding—had only been fed on one occasion, and the very woman about whom I asked a question this afternoon was, I understand, only fed or attempted to be fed, twice; yet in the end she had to be discharged. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman meant to convey the idea that because she took her food properly, after being told she would be discharged, she fully recovered her health, for then there would be no reason for discharging her. I take it she was so discharged because it would have been dangerous to her life or reason to have kept her in prison.
  If that were an isolated case there might be something to be said for leaving the matter in the hands of the prison doctors. But I have in my pocket a series of statements, authenticated by some of the highest physicians in the country, who have examined women after they have been discharged from prison, and have unanimously declared that most of the cases are cases on similar lines to the one I have just mentioned. It seems to me that whatever case the Home Secretary may have for forcible feeding, there is no case for saying that he is forcibly feeding them for the purpose of preventing them determining their own sentences. Whatever other reason he may give, he cannot possibly give that as a reason, as over 60 per cent. of the women who have gone on hunger strikes have determined their own sentences, and have had to be discharged. Does the House of Commons want this kind of thing to go on or not? And is it not time we found a more excellent method of dealing with what, after all, is passive resistance, the strongest form of resistance that is possible in any community, the resistance of just standing or sitting still and absolutely refusing to
  2778
  do anything? Is it not time that the House asked the Home Secretary and the prison authorities to find some better method of dealing with these women?
  9.0 P.M.
  I want to re-emphasise the point that you gain nothing by this method. If at the end you could show that it kept all these women in prison, there would be something to be said for it from the penal point, of view, but you do not succeed in doing that. The medical men who have advised the Home Secretary are of opinion that there is no danger in it. There must be danger in it, otherwise the women would not be discharged as they are being discharged. In practice it proves itself so dangerous that the women are bound to be discharged. The House ought to realise that it is not for fun that the women undergo, in some ways, untold misery both before and after this process. They are doing it for the same principle that every political prisoner has ever endured any kind of hardship in a prison. They do not want to be treated as criminals; they want to have the kind of treatment that you mete out to international political offenders. It is of no use the Attorney-General saying, as he did on the last occasion, that there is no such thing as a political offender. We do recognise political offenders, and the fight the women are putting up is for the same recognition. Even if the Home Secretary does not appoint a Committee to inquire into what has been done, I hope that he will draft some rules so as to bring Rule 243A and the Rules concerning first-class misdemeanants into one, and treat all political offenders as first-class misdemeanants. I have read over again the two letters of Lord Justice Coleridge with regard to the three prisoners who were convicted of conspiracy. I am still unsatisfied that there has not been differentiation in regard to prisoners. I am not going to say that the Home Secretary is the person who is altogether guilty. I do not know whether that is the case, because I do not know what happened outside this House, but I do know what happened with regard to Mr. Justice Coleridge. I know that in sentencing those women he made the statement contained in the letter read out by the Home Secretary, that had they expressed any contrition and promised not to offend again he would have put them in the first division. The second letter, which was written some days afterwards—after the agitation had taken place outside—put an

  2779
  entirely different construction upon that. I do not claim that I know the English language like a judge or a lawyer, but ordinary people reading his first letter and listening to his summing up were under the impression that he wanted to extract a promise from Mrs. Pankhurst and Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence that they would not undertake such an agitation again. That was whittled down finally to saying that if they promised not to carry on the agitation they would be treated as first-class misdemeanants, and they were so treated. I put it to the House that all the other women who were in prison were entitled to exactly the same treatment. Beyond that, I want to claim that those who are now in prison are entitled to that treatment. All people have not the privilege of knowing people in society, who can bring influence to bear upon either Ministers or judges.
  Mr. CASSEL: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in reflecting on the conduct of judges in their judicial capacity?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): That is distinctly out of order.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think I was reflecting on the judges. The two letters I quoted are in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and every statement I have made up to the present was made by the Home Secretary standing at that Table. What I said—and I think I am entitled to say it—is that it is a most extraordinary thing that between the writing of the one letter and the writing of the second letter there was great agitation in the country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already directed the hon. Member's attention to the fact that what he said was out of order. I ask him not to repeat it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: If you will tell me what I have repeated that is out of order I am perfectly willing to withdraw it. I want to point out that between Lord Justice Coleridge's first letter and his second letter there was persistent agitation in the country.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making remarks reflecting upon one of His Majesty's judges. That I have already stated is out of order. I must again ask him not to repeat it.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Am I not entitled to take the two letters which have been used as an argument in defence of the Home Secretary's action and to argue upon those letters, and to point out to the House that there was persistent agitation in the country between the writing of the first letter and the writing of the second letter. Surely if that reflects upon the judge that is his business and not mine. I cannot help it if he should write two distinctly different letters.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am sorry that the hon. Member wants me to repeat for the third time that he is out of order. I must ask him not to repeat it again.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Am I not entitled to call attention to the two letters? Both of them are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I remember that the words of the two letters are entirely different. That is all to which I want to call the attention of the House, and I leave the House and the country to draw their own conclusions from the two letters. I want further to say with regard to the other prisoners who have not got influence with Ministers or other people, that they are unable to get the privileges of Rule 213a. There is a great deal said in this House about equality of treatment. There is lying in one of His Majesty's prisons at the present moment a man convicted of an offence connected with the suffrage agitation, and I contend that if a woman who commits a breach of the peace or an offence against the law under the same circumstances, is entitled to treatment under Rule 243a, the least we can ask is that the man Gray, who is at present in prison, should be treated in the same manner. I do not understand the distinction drawn between prisoners of one sex and the other, and between prisoners of one standing in society and prisoners of another standing in society. That this is so is perfectly evident to anyone who cares to read the evidence on the subject or who take the trouble to find out why various people are imprisoned. I contend that all the prisoners convicted of offences in connection with that agitation should be treated in the same manner. I want to go a step further, and in regard to the prisoners, Crowsley, Tom Mann, the Bucks, and Bowman, and those prisoners connected with the "don't shoot" campaign, to say that each of these was as guiltless of moral turpitude as any prisoner connected with the suffrage agitation, and I do not understand

  2781
  why, just automatically, they should not have been given the same privileges as are given to prisoners under that rule. It is said that the offence of Tom Mann and Crowsley was a very serious one. I do not understand all this talk about the seriousness of one offence and the lesser seriousness of another in this connection. Surely any offence that involves locking up a man is serious enough, and the prisoners who have been sentenced in connection with the "don't shoot" campaign were sentenced to hard labour just as some women were sentenced to hard labour; but in the case of the women, after persistent agitation, we were able to get all of them the conditions of 243A, and I ask that when men are convicted of similar offences they should be treated in the same manner.
  That brings me to the last point—the men who are now in prison in connection with the dispute at the docks. There are some hundred, or perhaps more, men at present in prison because of disturbances connected with the late dock strike. I do not defend violence of any kind any more than hon. Gentlemen opposite do, but we shall all agree that when men are suffering the pangs of hunger, when they are going home night after night to face their women and children without food, it is rather hard for them to see other men taking their work under conditions that they think are very unfavourable to their class. At the end of any war, I think even at the end of a civil war in Ulster, if ever it came off, we should all be quite agreeable to see that, as far as possible, all the old sores were cleared up. I believe the great majority, both of dockers and stevedores and all sorts of men, are back at work, and most of us will be going off for a holiday; and those who have children will be seeing them decently and comfortably enjoying themselves. I have a vision of these men in prison and their women and children, knowing that they are in prison and the hopelessness of their struggle with poverty which will be besetting them. Seeing that all classes, from His Majesty downwards, are now putting up money to help people out of the difficulties in which they have been landed, and as the Home Secretary has advised His Majesty to reconsider many sentences during his term of office, I believe no better case could be put up for the consideration of mercy than the case of these men. I have been in some of their disturbances, I have seen how they arose, and I have seen the kind
  2782
  of man who has been taken to prison, and I can assure the House that very often the disturbances have arisen almost spontaneously, without any previous arrangement at all, but just on the spur of the moment, as this kind of disturbance nearly always takes place. So far, hardly any property has been destroyed or injured during the strike. I should say that, considering there are nearly 100,000 practically all poor men with their dependants in the condition this whole population has-been in for ten weeks, the amount, of lawlessness has been quite trivial. Property has been as safe in the East and South-East, London as under normal conditions, and, although some heads have been broken, I hope the Home Secretary will remember that many heads of non-combatants have been broken too, that many people who perhaps took part in the disturbances have had their heads cracked as well, and that many and many a home to-night has got its bread-winner in gaol for six months, and in some cases even for twelve. It seems to me that it would be a rounding off of all this difficulty, it would be showing that at least the Government were willing to take a broad view of their responsibilities, if the sentences on these men could be reconsidered and, if possible, revised. I know some men had nothing whatever to do with the strike, but were in a public park or some public place and were swept into the disturbances, and under these circumstances I wish to make the very strongest appeal I can—mainly because I know many of these men and know their women and children—to the Home Secretary that he will get lists of these men made, and will go into each case, and if it is at all possible advise His Majesty to grant pardon.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Noble Lord (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck), in a sympathetic speech, called1 attention to the fatal fire which occurred in Moor Lane. He pointed to the fact that the evidence at the coroner's inquest shows that the means of escape from the fire were inadequate and particularly referred to the fact that there was no notice pointing out where the proper exit was, and he further called attention to the particular dangers which arise from the use of celluloid in certain factories. With regard to the question of safety from fire, there is a dual jurisdiction. The local

  2783
  authority is responsible for providing proper means of escape from fire, and for determining what is adequate. The Home Office is responsible for inspecting the means of escape which the local authority has ordered to be provided. I did not understand that the Noble Lord blamed the Home Office, and I cannot discover that there was in the present case any dereliction of duty on their part. But I would not wish to run away from responsibility merely by stating the technical limit of the Home Office duty. I entirely agree with the Noble Lord that whether the responsibility be directly ours or not it would be most desirable that our inspectors should call attention, not only to any defect in the maintenance of means of escape, but of any obvious deficiency in the means of escape. I have not yet had a report upon the matter. If no notice of the exits was properly provided, I certainly regret that the attention of the local authority was not called to its absence by the Home Office inspector. With regard to the second point, namely, the dangerous occupation which was carried on in the premises, the matter is not at all an easy one. The Noble Lord suggests that under the powers which the Home Office now enjoys under the Factory Act of 1901 compulsory regulations should be issued dealing with any manufacture which involves the use of celluloid. The difficulties in dealing with the question in a wholesale way are very great. As I am informed, celluloid differs very much in the degree of its inflammability. Some celluloid, I am told, is no more inflammable than wood. Other celluloid, on the contrary, is as dangerous—as appeared from the evidence before the coroner—as was the celluloid used in this particular case. It would be impossible, therefore, if one has regard to the processes of manufacture, to issue general regulations dealing with all cases of the use of celluloid. Then the quantity of celluloid used in any particular manufacture must be a material factor in determining whether the regulations would or would not be applicable. In certain cases where celluloid is used in Sheffield in the manufacture of knife handles the memorandum issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories would be very useful of application. In other cases it is perfectly obvious that we must have further inquiry before we could have regulations which would be of general use. I can assure the Noble Lord that inquiry is to be
  2784
  undertaken at once, and that when we have full information for dealing with this manufacture I am quite confident that if an amendment of the law should be necessary I shall have the support of the House in introducing such an amendment; but if it is not necessary, I assure the House that I shall proceed under the powers I already possess under the Act of 1901. I hope that assurance will satisfy the Noble Lord in regard to the case he has raised.
  I turn now to the points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He covered very wide ground, and raised s0everal topics which have already been very fully debated in the House. First of all, in regard to forcible feeding, I am happy to be in a position to inform him that nobody is being forcibly fed at the present time. He asked for inquiry into the subject, on the ground that eminent doctors had declared that it was dangerous to health. He disputed my statement that in the practice of forcible feeding as now carried on all danger is avoided. My hon. Friend must not quote me as having said that under no circumstances could there be danger in forcible feeding. As he rightly pointed out, such a statement could not be true, in the opinion of the Home Office. I frequently have advised the exercise of the prerogative, in order to release a prisoner to whom forcible feeding would be dangerous. The question is whether it would be dangerous, as carried on at the present time. The moment we are advised that there would be any serious danger, or permanent danger to health, and anything more than temporary inconvenience, the practice of forcible feeding is discontinued. My hon. Friend says, cannot we devise some other method of dealing with these prisoners? I wish he would help me. He suggests that as these prisoners cannot be kept in prison under conditions of forcible feeding, and as therefore forcible feeding cannot be necessary, or cannot be practised, with the intention of compelling prisoners to remain in prison, therefore forcible feeding should be abandoned. It appears to me a very simple, logical process by which my hon. Friend comes to that conclusion. But what would that mean? If forcible feeding is to be abandoned, and prisoners informed that in no circumstances will they be forcibly fed, then a prisoner has only to announce his intention not to take food, and he will be immediately released. That is the difficulty in which my hon. Friend will be placed.

  2785
  Then as to the doctors who declare that forcible feeding should not be practised in the case of Suffragette prisoners, although it may properly be practised in the case of all other prisoners, the distinction is one I am unable to draw. If I am bound by law, as I am bound, in the administration of the penal code, to keep alive by any means in my power all such prisoners as are committed to the charge of the prison commissioners—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are you?"] I am not permitted by law to allow prisoners to starve themselves. It is the duty of the prison commissioners to see that prisoners do not starve themselves. If that duty is imposed on the prison commissioners, it is imposed as regards all prisoners alike.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Who were the doctors who said otherwise? Was it Sir Victor Horsley?
  Mr. McKENNA: A long correspondence has been entered into by certain doctors—and I think Sir Victor Horsley was one of them—who said that in their view, in the case of the Suffragette prisoners, forcible feeding should not be applied. I asked if they wished the same rule to apply to all prisoners, and they said that they made that statement with respect to the Suffragette prisoners, and did not wish it to apply to all prisoners, their reason being that the Suffragette prisoners were only imprisoned on account of certain actions resulting from their political beliefs. My own conclusion from that view is that no matter what breach of the law a Suffragette might be guilty of if the prisoner declares her intention not to take food, she must be immediately released. There is no other solution that I can see. I regret that I am unable to give my hon. Friend any assurance whatever that these prisoners who decline to take their food will not be dealt with as the law requires. Then he asks that Rule 243A should be approximated to the conditions of the first division. I would rather put it that it might be an advantage if the conditions of prison life in the first division were rendered more severe, and were brought down to the level of the conditions allowed under Rule 243A. That is a matter to which the Prison Commissioners are giving their attention at present, and if it is thought desirable on a full examination of the case to make any change, I shall announce it to the House at the first opportunity. Then my hon. Friend seemed to have in his mind that the social standing
  2786
  of the prisoners has something to do with their treatment in prison. I can assure him that he is under a complete delusion on that point. I personally have not the slightest idea of what the social standing is of any of the suffragette prisoners who are now in prison, or who have been in prison, and it never entered into my mind either to inquire or to consider what their social standing may be. The hon. Member thinks that the prisoners who were tried before Lord Justice Coleridge were put in the first division on account of their social standing. Nothing could be further from the thoughts of either of the judge or myself, and if it is not a matter to argue about it is because any suggestion that they were put into the first division for some occult reason is entirely without foundation. They were simply placed in the first division because the judge, as he stated in his letter to me, believed that he would have put them into the first division had the prisoners given him at the trial the assurance which they subsequently gave to me.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is it a fact that the assurance which was asked for the first time differed entirely from that which was asked the second time?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, but the prisoners through their agent volunteered the statement to me as to the conditions on which they would act while in prison. I forwarded that statement to the judge, and the judge, in his letter, stated that although these conditions did not exactly fulfil his original terms, still, if the prisoners had given those pledges at the time of the trial, he would have placed them in the first division.
  Mr. LANSBURY: He never asked for those at the time.
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes to be fair, but he is not quite clear on the point. Prisoners at the time of the trial stated that they would give no assurance, and subsequently they stated that they did not understand what it was that was asked of them. It was really a misunderstanding between the prisoners and the judge, and there was no point whatever in the suggestion that it had anything to do with the social standing of the prisoners. If it comes to a question of social standing of the prisoners, of those prisoners who were forcibly fed, Mrs. Pankhurst was not because her

  2787
  state of health would not allow it, but Mrs. Pethwick Lawrence was forcibly fed, and so was Mr. Pethwick Lawrence. There is nothing in the suggestion of my hon. Friend on this point. Then he said that sex had something to do with it, and that the reason Mr. Gray was not receiving the benefit of Rule 243A is because he is a man. He is not receiving it because he was guilty of serious violence. The rule is not applied to persons who are guilty of serious violence. Then he asked as to why Crowsley did not receive it. Rule 243A does not apply as a right to anybody. It is a matter of discretion. The instructions given to prison authorities are that Rule 243A is to apply in the case of suffragette prisoners and passive resisters, but in any other case in which the rule is applied for application is to be made for instructions. It has been laid down as a general rule that in the case of suffragette prisoners and passive resisters their cases are of a kind, provided they are not guilty of serious violence, to which the Rule 243A is to apply, but in all other cases special application must be made in order to consider whether the case is one in which the rule should be applied. Then my hon. Friend asked that there should be a general gaol delivery of prisoners who had been convicted of offences arising out of the dock strike. My hon. Friend recognises that it would be impossible for me to advise His Majesty to exercise the prerogative of mercy in such a manner. However, he is perfectly within his rights in asking me to consider each particular case upon its merits. I shall consider any application made by any prisoner now that the dock strike is over, but I could not make any general promise of amnesty.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Before we go to a Division on this question I think there should be a voice raised, however feeble, in favour of some retrenchment in our expenditure. The Appropriation Bill, to which we are asked to give a Third Reading, is a Bill which appropriates vast sums of money from the taxpayers. I think we ought to ask ourselves the question, is that money being well spent? I think that an unnecessarily large amount is being spent upon preparations for Imperial defence. It is admitted on both sides of the House that the reason we are spending such vast sums on the Navy, at any rate, is because of our hostility to Germany or their hostility to us. Why are we not spending this
  2788
  money on building ships against France? Of course the answer is because we are friends with that Power. Why then may we not be friends with Germany too? Millions of persons in this country and millions of persons in Germany are anxious to bring about relations between the two countries as amicable and as friendly as those which exist between this country and France. Tens of thousands of persons are actively engaged in promoting such relations. I submit to the Government—and I am glad that we have at least one Cabinet Minister here to represent it—that it ought not to baffle statesmanship to bring about relations of this kind. We do not arm against France, and, once you establish friendly relations between this country and Germany, we should require to spend far less money than that which we are about to vote, and provide fewer guns and fewer men. Let the House remember that it is the poor taxpayer as well as the rich who has to pay these men, to provide them with food, shelter, and clothing, and with rich accoutrements. The money which we spend for them we could save, and turn it to productive work. We have a Liberal Government in power, let us have a Liberal policy; and nothing could do more to strengthen their hold upon the country than a modification of the present policy. The Government at this moment are alienating the support of their friends, and their best friends, both in this House and in the country. They are lowering the temperature of Liberalism. I do not ask for a less efficient Navy by any means; but I say that with a smaller peril to meet, a smaller provision would be necessary, and would be equally efficient. Both in Germany and here it is a common saying in the Press and on every platform, that this rivalry in building warships is madness. Whichever side you go to you will find that argument used—a mad rivalry. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary (Sir E. Grey) came down here and told us three years ago that if this policy went on for a few years more, it would bring us to national bankruptcy. It has gone on, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, of all other men, perhaps is the most responsible for it.
  I am a pretty stout and consistent supporter of the present Government, but I have been driven several times lately, upon Naval Votes, into the Opposition Lobby. I would ask the Government why should they drive their supporters, their best sup-

  2789
  porters, their very strongest supporters, into the Lobby against them? They may be quite sure that I and my friends went into the Lobby against them with the greatest possible reluctance; not only that, but many others who went into the Lobby to support them went there with great reluctance, also. This is not Liberal policy. In the year 1909 the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill) said:—
  "A Liberal is a man who ought to stand as a restraining force against an extravagant policy, to keep cool in the presence of Jingo clamour, and to present a sour look to scaremongers of every kind, however distinguished."
  Three years later the right hon. Gentleman himself, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who is now putting further millions on the taxpayer, has become the darling of the Admiralty and Naval Lords, he is cheered by the Tories, and he is petted by the Navy League. The hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne), who is Secretary of the Naval League, said he recently talked with an officer, at midnight, on the "Enchantress," and that the officer remarked to him, "By Gad,
  he plays the First Lord devilish well." The hon. Member said and said truly that that implied a compliment beyond mere words. I am a Liberal in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty described "Liberal" three years ago, and I cultivate a sour look—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," "Withdraw"]—towards all scaremongers, however distinguished. I have only to add that it does seem to mo, before we go to a Division, that it was for somebody to say this. I believe that the statesman who can bring about Anglo-German friendship, in exchange for the strained relations which exist to-day between these two great Powers will have done infinitely more for the peace of the world, infinitely more for the peace of his own country and of the great German Empire, than all the builders of "Dreadnoughts," and all the "Dreadnoughts" that anybody can build, in this wide world.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 162.

  Division No. 197.]

  AYES.

  [9.45 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Alden, Percy

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Armitage, Robert

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Barnes, G. N.

  Field, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Lansbury, George

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Bentham, G. J.

  George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Boland, John Pius

  Glanville, Harold James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Brace, William

  Hackett, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  McGhee, Richard

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hancock, J. G.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macneill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Clough, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hayward, Evan

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Mooney, John J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morison, Hector

  Cotton, William Francis

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Crooks, William

  Hinds, John

  Muldoon, John

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hodge, John

  Munro, Robert

  Cullinan, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Nolan, Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Dillon, John

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Dowd, John

  O'Grady, James

  Reddy, Michael

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Malley, William

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Shee, James John

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Webb, H.

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

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

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sheehy, David

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Shortt, Edward

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Goulding Edward Alfred

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grant, J. A.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Banner, John S. Marmood-

  Gretton, John

  Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

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

  Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barnston, Harry

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Royds, Edmund

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Boyton, James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

  Stanier, Beville

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hills, John Waller

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Swift, Rigby

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cassel, Felix

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerry, Earl of

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Maner)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chambers, J.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lewisham, Viscount

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

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Mackinder, Halford J.

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Craik, Sir Henry

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Winterton, Earl

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Fell, Arthur

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Younger, Sir George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Faber and Mr. Malcolm

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress 2nd August.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  FINANCE BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Computation of Gallons of Spirits for Purposes of Licence Duty.)
    (1) In computing the number of gallons of spirits distilled by any person during the year ending on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirteen, or during any subsequent year, for the purposes of Scale 1 of the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, there shall be reckoned only such spirits as are distilled for use as intoxicating liquor for the sale by retail of which a justice's licence is requisite under the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, or as an ingredient of such intoxicating liquor.
    (2) This Section shall not operate to reduce the licence duty payable by a distiller of spirits below the sum of ten pounds.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. BIGLAND: This Clause has reference to the duty paid on spirit. The important part of the Clause reads:—
    "There shall be reckoned only such spirits as are distilled for use as intoxicating liquor for the sale by retail of which a justice's licence is requisite."
    It follows from that that the spirit used for technical purposes will go without paying the duty. I wish to put it to the Committee and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that with the progress of science alcohol is becoming more and more an absolute requisite in our industrial business, and I want to know if it is not possible for him to accept this proposal in order to encourage our own home industry. The Committee is probably aware that it is not an easy thing for scientists to so denaturalise the spirit, so that it cannot possibly be used as an intoxicating liquor or beverage. There are difficulties with regard to alcoholic spirits being used for solvents in many of our varnish trades and for other businesses where it would be exceedingly valuable. I believe it is possible for the officers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so to devise safeguards that those spirits could be used in our manufactures without any fear of defrauding the revenue with regard to the ordinary alcohol drank. I might mention one article in which the use of alcohol was found to be exceedingly valuable. The Committee are no doubt
    2794
    aware that there is an enormous business done in this country to-day by importing both nuts and seeds of Eastern and tropical plants. In preparing these oils to render them absolutely odourless and neutral, some such product as alcohol is found necessary, and a great deal of business has been turned away from this country because our chemists have not been free to use alcohol for this purpose. When the Committee remember that during last year 580,000 tons of one commodity alone were imported into Europe, they will have some idea of the volume of business now being transacted in which this alcohol might be used as a refilling agent. I submit that the time has arrived when some system of refining in bond or using alcohol for industrial purposes in bond, should be established. It seems very hard that one solvent, such as turpentine, or the natural gum from which it is distilled, can be used by the manufacturer without duty or licence, because it is not serviceable for alcoholic drinks, while another spirit equally valuable in the varnishing and many other trades, cannot be so used because it affects the duty with regard to liquors sold for beverage purposes. I believe it is quite possible for the matter to be arranged, and I shall be exceedingly grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can accept this new Clause.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have nothing to say against the object that the hon. Gentleman has in view. Quite the reverse; it is a very laudable purpose. The difficulty is purely a practical one. We have considered this matter very carefully, and my advisers tell me that it is absolutely impossible to discriminate between liquors distilled for this purpose and liquors distilled for other purposes. You cannot set up any machinery for following the liquors to their destination and enabling you to discriminate on the basis for the purposes for which they are used. The relief to the taxpayer would be a very small one, amounting, I understand, approximately to one-tenth of a penny per gallon. That is not a very serious matter for the manufacturer.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I think that figure must be a mistake.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I give the figure which has been worked out. Seeing that very elaborate machinery would be required, and it is very doubtful whether you could set up any machinery

    2795
    which would be really effective for the purpose, I regret that I cannot accept the proposed new Clause.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that this is a desirable object if it could be achieved. It is very difficult for one who has not access to official advisers accustomed to deal with these matters, to judge of the difficulty. I hope the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman will not think me unduly critical if I say that in their anxiety to guard the revenue they are sometimes more conscious of the revenue difficulties than of the difficulties or inconveniences of the taxpayers, and that it requires from time to time a little pressure from the political chiefs of the Department to make them realise that, important as it is to guard the revenue, the interests of the taxpayer, or in this case of the manufacturer, cannot be wholly sacrificed to the interests of the revenue. Subject to the modification I have laid down with regard to a speaker on this side of the Table being ignorant of the revenue conditions, I should have thought that the revenue could be sufficiently guarded if you put on the manufacturer the onus of proving that the spirit on which he claimed relief from duty had in fact gone to the purpose which would entitle him to such relief. You might have to charge the duty in the first place and give the relief in the form of rebate, but I should have thought that you could guard the revenue by putting upon the manufacturer the onus of proving that the spirit had been used for these manufacturing purposes instead of putting on the Inland Revenue the onus of proving that it had not. In the meantime the Committee will note that in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done that which is anathema maranatha to himself and all his party. He has put a tax upon industry, and not merely a tax upon industry, but a discriminating tax. It is of no advantage to anybody at home; as far as there is any advantage it appears to be somebody elsewhere. I think when I state that fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see that it is well worth his while to devote some portion of his time to trying to remove a grievance which he himself has created.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I think there must be some serious mistake in the figure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given.
    2796
    One of my friends at Liverpool told me that he himself was paying to the revenue for spirit distilled from molasses, which has to be denaturalised, £5,000 a year. I have worked that out, and at the rate mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would mean 120,000,000 gallons. I am sure that my friend does not distil that quantity, so I think that there must be some mistake.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I rather gather that the difficulty applies only to manufacturers' licences and not to the ordinary duties of Customs or Excise. I think that, in regard to the duties of Customs and Excise the difficulty has been met. I remember this very point being raised, not as regards manufacturers' licences, but as regards Customs and Excise duties. A concession was made which met the point—that is to the best of my recollection. I think it was in 1903. Surely, if it is possible as regards the Excise, whether done by rebate or otherwise, it is possible in regard to manufacturers' licences, if the manufacturer can prove how the spirit he makes is used? I might ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we were not in exactly the same or similar difficulties, in regard to Petrol Duty, and the use of petrol used by doctors' cars and so on. A solution was found of these difficulties, and certainly it does not appear on the face of it that the duty in this particular instance would involve more difficulties than in those instances! I know a great deal was made of the fact of the trouble of proving the destination of the petrol; but what surely applies to petrol applies to alcohol used by men of this class. I think that cannot be any insuperable difficulty in the case.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am advised that this will cost £2,600 a year. It certainly is not a serious matter. I will look into the matter, and make enquiries; but for the moment I cannot accept the motion.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What my hon. Friend behind me said in taking the analogy of petrol was that it is not more difficult to follow the use of spirit of this kind than it is to follow the use of motor spirit. The Revenue officers manage to decide in the case of the petrol tax that goes to the improvement of the roads, and therefore is confined to petrol used in motors driven along the road. Take the case of a man who has a petrol launch on the river at the foot of his garden, and

    2797
    a petrol driven motor in his garage. You do now distinguish between the petrol which he buys, as to how much goes to his launch, and how much to his motorcar. You do distinguish with sufficient accuracy, and you tax him on the one and not on the other. There is even a greater case for giving relief in the case put forward, for though the loss to the Revenue is very slight, the hardship in individual cases of manufacturers is, I think, considerable.
    Mr. BECK: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bigland) told us that his friend pays £5,000 a year in duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the loss to the revenue would be £2,600. I should like to know where the £2,400 go which the hon. Member says his friend pays? When these figures are used they ought to be used with great care, because the House is likely to receive a wrong impression.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: I am not certain whether the object that my hon. Friend has in view might not be met otherwise than he suggests. IE a rebate was given for the spirit used in industrial work, the difficulty which the Chancellor has referred to might be obviated.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I just ask the Chancellor whether it is not a fact that manufacturers—not manufacturers of alcohol or alcoholic substances—but manufacturers who use alcohol for the purpose of their manufactures of polish, say, and other matters, get a rebate as it is? The attention of the present Lord Chancellor was directed to this very point, and I understand—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In that case the revenue is not taken. The spirit has to be made absolutely unfit for drink before you get it. But the hon. Member is moving a reduction of the Licence Duty—which is rather a different thing. I would not, I think, be justified in going beyond what I promised, and that is to look into the matter.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: You can trace the spirit in the one case; why not in the other? There is an Excise Duty upon alcohol. That duty in the first instance is paid. Then the manufacturer says, "I want a rebate, because I am not using it for the purposes of drinking, but for the purposes of manufacture." The right hon. Gentleman says that the revenue is protected. How? Is some one brought forward and made to see whether he can drink the spirit or not? I presume
    2798
    not. I presume the manufacturer has only to show that a certain amount of alcohol is used by him in the course of his manufacture. Why cannot the one test be applied equally in the case of the manufacturer's licence?
    Mr. BIGLAND: As I understand the Motion which I wish to move covers this Section, for the Section shall not operate to reduce the Licence Duty payable by distillers of spirits below the sum of £10. I understand that £10 is the ordinary Licence Duty. What I am asking for is not an actual reduction in the duty, but that the number of gallons used in a certain way should be counted. With regard to the hon. Member opposite who asked a question, I have no objection to giving the name of the person, though perhaps it would be as well not to give it publicly; I will give it afterwards. My friend told me there was another firm as large as his in this country, so that, so far as I can see, there must be some misunderstanding. It seems to me quite possible that to meet the case the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make some rule where in very large factories he could have his own officers watching the alcohol being used as a solvent in many kinds of paint and so on, and where it would be absolutely impossible afterwards where in the case of the alcohol so used the revenue should be defrauded. Many of these factories are treating enormous quantities of goods. They can be made, if required, to work in bond under the inspection or supervision of one of the officers. I am sure some consideration such as I suggest would be of very valuable assistance to this country, because there are new industries which cannot be born because of this duty. I know of a case of the manufacture of cocoanut oil where one firm started business and the business was killed. I believe there are a number of other industries that could be born in this country if this duty on alcohol was removed.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The principle which is the basis of this Amendment is one that has already been admitted by the Legislature. It is provided by the Act passed about four years ago in consequence of the Committee which inquired into this subject, and which decided that there should be a drawback or rather a present of 4d. a gallon made to manufacturers using alcohol not intended to be used for consumption, but in the arts and manufactures. This compensation was given for the

    2799
    express purpose of helping those engaged in the various trades and manufactures when it was shown that alcohol was not being used simply for drinking purposes; and it was found by that Committee that it was a good thing to give a return of 4d. per gallon in such circumstances as some compensation for all the extra cost that was thrown upon the distiller in contradistinction to the distillers of the Continent of Europe. Since then we have had the famous Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with all its additional duties in regard to spirits. As I understand, the object of this new Clause is to make it plain that the distiller is not to have to pay a higher duty in respect of that proportion of the alcohol he produces which is going to be made use of for commercial purposes. It is exceedingly important that whilst we are raising revenue, and that whilst, at all events for the purposes of the present Government, you must have these duties from alcohol,
    we should take care that we do not injure any trade or any industry in the United Kingdom which depends upon alcohol as one of the ingredients used in the course of manufacture. The object of this new Clause is to make it clear that whilst an additional duty is imposed now upon the distiller, the number of gallons distilled for trade purposes, in contradistinction to those distilled for the purpose of drink shall not increase the amount of duty which the distiller has to pay. I think that is an important and a valuable Amendment, in the interests of trade and commerce, and whilst for present purposes we do not question the fact that these increased duties have to be paid on the alcohol consumed, in a regular way, we ought to take care that we do not impose an additional burden upon the trade and the commerce of the country.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 201.

    Division No. 198.]

    AYES.

    [10.20 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mills, Hon, Charles Thomas

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Ashley, Wilfrid

    Fleming, Valentine

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Col. J.

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Baird, J. L.

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Parkes, Ebenezer

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

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Barnston, Harry

    Goulding, E. A.

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Gwynne, R. S. (Eastbourne)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Haddock, George B.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley G.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Boyton, James

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Ronaldshay, Earl ol

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Campion, W. R.

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Cautley, H. S.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanier, Beville

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Chambers, James

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Swift, Rigby

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Knight, Captain, E. A.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lewisham, Viscount

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Magnus, Philip

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

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

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

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Younger, Sir George

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

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

    Winterton, Earl

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Bigland and Mr. Watson Rutherford.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    O'Dowd, John

    Alden, Percy

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

    O'Grady, James

    Armitage, Robert

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Malley, William

    Barnes, George N.

    Hayward, Evan

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

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hinds, John

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hodge, John

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Boland, John Pius

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brace, William

    Hughes, S. L.

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Price, C. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Clough, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clynes, John R.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lansbury, George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Crooks, William

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lundon, T.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cullinan, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Delany, William

    MacGhee, Richard

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Maclean, Donald

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Dillon, John

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Tennant, Harold

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Molloy, M.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Field, William

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mooney, J. J.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morgan, George Hay

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Worrell, Philip

    Wardle, George J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Morison, Hector

    Webb, H.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Muldoon, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Munro, R.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhougthon)

    Hackett, J.

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Hancock, J. G.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Mr. WEDGWOOD, who had given notice to move the following new Clause—
    (Repeal of Duty on Sugar.)
    From and after the First day of October, nineteen hundred and twelve, the duty on sugar shall cease to be levied:
    In view of our withdrawal from the Brussels Sugar Convention, I do not intend to move this new Clause about the Sugar Duty this year, but merely to give notice that I shall move it next year.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Excise Duty on Retail Liquor Licences.)
    Every duty payable under Part II. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on any licence for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquor (including every duty imposed by way of a minimum charge) shall be reduced by an amount equal to eight and a-half per cent. of that duty.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move this Clause, standing in my name. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget he pledged himself to limit the charge upon the trade generally to £2,100,000 beyond the sum they were paying at that time. In the course of the Debate we had a further splitting up of that sum, and a practical pledge given by the present Postmaster-General, who was in charge of the Licensing Clauses, that the amount to be taken from the on and off-licence holders was intended to be £1,600,000, and when the new register was completed the total yield from that particular source was to be £1,500,000, and no more. It has not been possible to complete the register, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there was no immediate or probable prospect of it being done. A register which was to have been completed within a few months has not yet been completed, and charges amounting on an average to £420,000 a year have been taken out of the on and off-licence holders more than the amount which he pledged himself should not be exceeded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, "I wanted £2,100,000." I think he calculates he is only getting £1,750,000, and the actual sum from clubs is £220,000. But I do not think he has any business, in dealing with various classes of licences, to make one class pay for the shortage in another. I put it moderately, that the actual excess taken from licence holders was 11 per cent., but to allow for certain adjustment I claim 8½ per cent. only. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is under a perfectly definite pledge. I admit it was given in connection with the new basis for assessment; but the right hon. Gentleman, entirely through his own fault, has been unable to produce the promised register. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will refuse to accept my Clause. But in so doing he will be extremely unfair and unjust to the
    2804
    trade which ought not to be punished because Clause 44 of the Budget has proved to be unworkable, or because the Inland Revenue failed to carry out the instructions embodied in that Clause: it ought not to be punished because a foolish circular was issued, as a result of which the register is in embryo. I take it the right hon. Gentleman admits the Government is under a pledge in this matter, if not I will quote speeches to prove it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is practically asking for a reduction of £400,000 in the Licence Duties. In the first place I am afraid I cannot afford it in the present year, and I am not sure if I could there might not be a demand which would appeal more to the bulk of Members of this House than that. The hon. Baronet seeks to fasten on the Government a pledge that the aggregate amount of duty which was to be extracted from the licensed trade—on and off—was to be £1,600,000, including the duty from clubs. My recollection of what was said during the passage of the Budget through the House of Commons was that I expected to get from the licensed trade £2,100,000. I went beyond that in deputations which I received from the licensed trade. I said that if they did not care for this Schedule, if they submitted another Schedule which would return £2,100,000 I should be perfectly prepared to accept it. I never asked for more than that. The hon. Baronet agrees that substantially that is the amount we have received—I think it is about £170,000 above that. It is not by any means finally settled, because there are one or two questions which have to be settled again, and we shall probably make a return to some of the larger holders of licensed property. The hon. Baronet says that the Postmaster-General split up that amount, and confined this pledge to the on-and-off licence trade. I think he is rather stretching what my right hon. Friend said on that occasion, and the explanation he gave as to the sources from which the sum would be derived. He is rather straining that to a pledge. My right hon. Friend undoubtedly did say that the sum of money we expected to get from the on-and-off licence trade was £1,600,000, and that the remainder of the £2,100,000 we expected to get from other sources. As a matter of fact it has turned out that the £500,000 is down to £333,000, and the £1,600,000 is up to something less than £2,000,000, but the aggregate is pretty near the sum which I then stated

    2805
    we expected to get from the licensed trade.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that the Postmaster-General could not help himself. He was dealing with the registered licence value. He had to split up the sum; he had no other resource.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was the occasion on which he undoubtedly did split it up into £500,000 and £1,600,000. I quite accept what the hon. Baronet says, for he has never misled me or the House. I understand that what the Postmaster-General said on that occasion was that when we came to the re-valuation, which we had hoped might be ready in the course of a few months, that then the total sum we hoped to get out of the licensed trade was £1,600,000—
    Sir G. YOUNGER: He said not substantially greater.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was in the event of there being a revaluation of the licensed houses. The hon. Baronet said he would not go into the question of why there would not be a revaluation. He must recognise that it is not the fault of the Government. There is nothing we should more prefer than that we should have a general revaluation. The fact is that it suits one part of the licensed trade and not another; it suits the London houses, but not the provincial houses. That is the reason why we have been utterly unable to get any sort of co-operation from the trade in this matter, and it is a very difficult thing to do without that. I should be very glad indeed if it were possible to do it, because I am sure it is the best method of raising the money. But I cannot enter into that now. I am sorry I cannot see my way to give the trade the very substantial reduction the hon. Baronet has asked for.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Having regard to what passed during the Budget discussions of 1909, I think the trade has a substantial grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that he will neither accept the Amendment nor propose any alternative of his own. I do not think really, although the words of the Postmaster-General were very definite and explicit, that the matter rests wholly on the words of the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They were not very explicit.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think they were explicit enough for a Minister's
    2806
    word. Under the circumstances whatever the Postmaster-General said must be regarded as the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of a very arduous Budget, found it necessary, or thought it right, to depute a certain portion of the work to his colleague. It was not as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to be present in the House to correct any statement made on the occasion if it could give rise to misunderstanding. He left the Bill in charge of a colleague, and while that colleague was in charge his words were the binding words for the Government. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said something very like it as far back as the Budget statement of that year. He said:—
    "It may well be, however, that it will have the effect of so considerably raising the whole level of the contribution required by the publican as to make it appeal oppressive."
    That is not the level of contribution of the trade but of the publican, and therefore refers specifically to the on and off licences.
    "In that case we undertake, when the valuation is complete, to reconsider the whole scale in the light of the more accurate and scientific figures which have been secured by the operation of this new assessment."
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer pleads in mitigation of any charge we bring against him now that the new valuation is not complete and that it is incomplete, not owing to any laches of the Government, but owing to differences of opinion amongst the trade. No doubt there are different interests in the trade. There almost always are in any trade. But I do not accept that explanation of the Government not having arrived at a new valuation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would have one. He issued an inquiry which it would have puzzled even a revenue officer, if he had been converted into a publican, to fill up correctly. If he would take the trade more into his confidence he might be able to complete his valuation, but if he cannot complete his valuation that does not relieve him of his pledge. He announced to the House that the valuation would be completed in two or three months. The belief which he held communicated itself to the House, and they accepted it, I do not say as wholly satisfactory, but they were obliged to accept, as the best they could get, his assurance that if within a few months the think was proved to be wrong he would set it right. It was to be proved right or wrong by a valuation. If the Government cannot make the valuation for any

    2807
    reason whatever it really is the Chancellor's business to find some way of redeeming his pledge. That the present system is not satisfactory I think the Chancellor himself would acknowledge. The inequalities of the distribution of the new burden are very curious. He estimated an increase of £1,600,000 for the whole trade. That works out at an increase of 82 per cent over the whole country. How is that distributed? In the case of London, as I am informed, the increase is 205 per cent. In the rest of England, excluding London and the eleven principal cities for which separate figures were given in the Return that the right hon. Gentleman granted to me, the figure is 86 per cent. When you take England as a whole, including these big cities, it is 114 per cent.; Wales, 92 per cent.; Scotland, 51 per cent.; and Ireland, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us there was no differentiation, 11 per cent. It is at least open to suspicion that the Government, which can never get through a Division without the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, should have framed a scheme which professes to distribute equally all round, but raises London 205, and England as a whole 114, and allows Ireland off with an increase of 11 per cent. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the publicans in England consider that they have a real grievance against him, and that it is his duty, if he cannot accept the proposal of my hon. Friend, at least to make some advance towards meeting it, and towards, I will not say giving them back that which they have over-contributed in the past, but towards relieving them of the excess of burden in future.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. If the valuation had been delayed through any fault of ours, and if the trade had done their very best to help us along, then I agree that there would be very good ground for the right hon. Gentleman to say that although we are adhering to the letter of the promise, we are breaking it in the spirit. But they have not. The Government were exceedingly anxious to find this new basis of valuation, and if they had been able to do so, they would have redressed what the right hon. Gentleman has been pointing out. There is no doubt that it is
    2808
    bearing heavily on the publicans of London for exactly the same reason that it is bearing lightly on Ireland. It is because the increase was in the higher class of public houses as far as annual value was concerned. So far as houses known as village public houses were concerned there was even a reduction of 10s. As the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, it does not apply where rates of value were very low. The class of houses known as village public houses is exactly the class you have in Ireland. There are very few public houses in Ireland valued at over £100.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that public houses in Dublin are assessed in exactly the same way as public houses in London?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As to that, I could not say at the moment. Let us assume for the moment that they are not; the difference would be a very small one in Ireland, for the simple reason that we get our money by increasing the charge on public houses over a certain rental. We have said to the publicans: "If you supply us with information to form the basis for a new valuation, we will proceed instantly with the new valuation." We sent out forms. They might be too minute. It may be said, "You asked information which no publican can supply. It is impossible to go into all these details, but if you ask such and such information we will supply you with that." The hon. Member (Mr. Gretton), at a meeting of his company, discouraged the supplying of information. They cannot complain that the Government have broken their pledges when they could easily have put it in our power to redeem those pledges, and they cannot say, "We propose to compel you to redeem a pledge which is dependent on the new valuation." The moment they are prepared to supply us with information we shall make the new valuation which will redress the grievance to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed, a grievance not as between the revenue and the trade, but as between certain localities, certain brewery companies, and others, and between one class of publican and another. The moment that is done we shall be prepared, not merely to redeem our pledge as we are bound to do, but we are anxious to do it because it will be the more equitable basis of taxing the trade, and it will be taxing them upon the business they are

    2809
    doing and not merely upon the size of the house.
    Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement for which there is no foundation whatever, that I said at a public meeting of the company with which I am connected—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. It was at the Licensed Victuallers' Asylum.
    Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that he is bound by Statute, and the basis of his valuation is laid down in the Budget for which he himself is responsible, and which was passed into law in April, 1910, and the form issued must be that which the Statute prescribes. The form when issued was of such a kind that no ordinary publican had the information required. The excuse which the right hon. Gentleman offers will not deceive anyone whatsoever. He has extracted from the licensed trade £442,000 more than the amount which he himself estimated, and to which he led this House and the country to believe that he intended to tax the trade when he passed the Budget. This is a very serious matter. It is no use for him to say that the total tax put on the licensed trade, manufacturers, brewers, distillers, dealers, and retail trade, was only £175,000 more. It has turned out to be only £175,000 more than he himself expected. But the distribution of this amount is of vast importance to the people who have to pay. We were told that the contribution from manufacturers was £400,000. They are paying this year about £385,000, practically the amount that was required. The clubs which were expected to pay £100,000, are paying only £53,000. They arte, therefore, short of what was required. But there was a great falling off in the amount estimated to be raised from the distillers' licences and from dealers' licences, and the whole of that amount comes back on the unfortunate retailer, and he not only finds the whole amount deficient owing to the false Estimates which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in other directions, but he is actually paying an excess on the total sum.
    That is the grievance. We claim that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bound to do his best to redeem the fault he has committed, and which he has pledged himself to remedy at the earliest possible moment. It is useless to say that he will do so when he has got a new valuation;
    2810
    he has set up the basis of valuation. He talks about the difference between town and country. There is no difference. Everybody in the trade has got a grievance, and the only people who have not got a grievance are the Irish. I recollect that the Irish retail trade was represented in this House by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), and he spoke of the burden which oppressed the retail trade in Ireland. The result was that he persuaded the right hon. Gentleman and the House to accept the Amendment that Griffiths' valuation should be adopted instead of the valuation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget. Small houses in Ireland now practically escape without any increase of taxation whatsoever, and they are exactly in the same position as before—in fact some are paying less. The only houses that are paying more are some of the larger houses in the larger towns of Ireland, which contribute whatever extra amount is raised in Ireland under the right hon. Gentleman's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt unfairly and unjustly with the licensed trade. He started a campaign to attack the trade, and he was going to make them smart.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when I said that I would make them smart? I never said so.
    Mr. GRETTON: I do not say the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, but his supporters said it, and the right hon. Gentleman did not reprove or rebuke them. I maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer owes us reparation, in view of the enormous revenue he has taken from the trade. He talks of the continued prosperity of the country, and surely he can afford to do justice to a hardly used and a very oppressed trade in this country. I am surprised that the Government should go back on their pledges, and it is only just that they should return the money which the right hon. Gentleman's representative in the Department said the Government ought not to take. I heartily support the Amendment.
    Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: It is not true to say that the Government in 1909 were dealing with £1,600,000 from the trade. Over and over again they have said in answer to questions that they were not in a position to allocate to any particular class of licences the sum which they were going to raise. They declared that the

    2811
    £2,100,000 could not be allocated to any one particular class of licences. They did not bind themselves to this particular amount. Secondly, I think the hon. Member has rather forgotten that this offer which was made to him was absolutely rejected. The hon. Member said, in the speech which has been referred to, that the object of the new valuation was to pry into private affairs in order to find out how to tax the trade further. He told the trade that he and his Friends had been quite right not to accept the invitation of the Chancellor to help him in his new valuation. On that the National Trade Defence Committee passed a resolution, saying that it was inopportune that the trade should officially recommend or support this new basis of valuation Therefore the offer was made to the trade and rejected by the trade, and the responsibility for rejecting this new system of valuation rests with the trade itself, and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman's speech to go without a reply. I have no doubt it is true that my hon. Friend made the remarks, but that is what called forth the Postmaster-General's pledge. Let me quote what the right hon. Gentleman said on 2nd September, 1909:—
    "I am aware that what is in the mind of hon. Members opposite is that we want to get this new compensation basis because we believe that it may produce more than the annual value, and that, consequently, this Sub-section is in intention a weapon for getting a higher sum out of the trade than would otherwise he obtained. This Sub-section, it is thought, is not merely a question of valuation, not merely a question of getting a fair basis of your taxation, but it is to be used as a means of getting more taxation out of the trade than would otherwise be obtained. That is not the intention of the Government, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never advanced any such argument. Therefore, if it is found that the new valuation so raises the general basis of valuation of the trade that
    to apply the same rates would amount to a substantial burden, then the rates will be modified. … It is not intended to be a vehicle of extracting any burdensome taxation from the trade, and I hope, in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said and my assurance, the discussion will be conducted on that basis."
    Could anything be more specific and distinct than that, and the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) knows it perfectly well.
    Mr. CASSEL: I wish to say a word from the point of view of a London Member. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admits that this injustice weighs particularly heavily on London, and it weighs in London, not only upon the licence holders, but upon the ratepayers, because the result has been in London of these heavy Licence Duties to knock down rateable value by over £350,000. For the first time in the history of London, since the Metropolis Valuation Act on the quinquennial valuation the rateable value of London has actually fallen. The result is that the other ratepayers have got to make up the deficiency. The Chancellor admits the injustice, but says that the injustice would have been remedied through a new basis of valuation being arrived at within three months. Now year after year goes by, and the new basis of valuation has not yet been arrived at, and how much longer is the injustice to continue. I should like some statement as to whether he is going to meet this admitted grievance of the London ratepayers. It looks to me as if this promise is going to be fulfilled possibly this year, possibly next year, and possibly sometime, or never at all.
    Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 198.

    Division No. 199.]

    AYES.

    [11.5 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Boyton, James

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bull, Sir William James

    Eyres-Monsell, Molton M.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cassel, Felix

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Barnston, H.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fleming, Valentine

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Grant, J. A.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Sandys, G. J.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanier, Beville

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Swift, Rigby

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nield, Herbert

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Hills, John Waller

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

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

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peto, Basil Edward

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

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Winterton, Earl of

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

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

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Yate, Col. C. E.

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

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rolleston, Sir John

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Royds, Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    G. Younger and Mr. Gretton.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lundon, Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Field, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Armitage, Robert

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    McGhee, Richard

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Gill, A. H.

    Maclean, Donald

    Barnes, George N.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Beck, Arthur

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

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

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Bentham, G. J.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hackett, J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Boland, John Pius

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hancock, John George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Bower man, C. W.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Brace, William

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Molloy, Michael

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Mooney, John J.

    Bryce, J. Annan

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

    Morgan, George Hay

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Morrell, Philip

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Muldoon, John

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Munro, Robert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Clough, William

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Clynes, John R.

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hinds, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hodge, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Crooks, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Dowd, John

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Grady, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Delany, William

    Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Malley, William

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Dillon, John

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Shee, James John

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Duffy, William J.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master

    Kilbride, Denis

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Lansbury, George

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    2814

    2815

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Rowlands, James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wadsworth, John

    Pringle, William M. R.

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Wardle, George J.

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Webb, H.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Reddy, Michael

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Sheehy, David

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Younger, Sir George

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I make this Motion with a view to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to make a statement. It is, of course, inconvenient to have to discuss these very important matters at this late period of the Session. It has led to a certain amount of communication between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I understand that the Chancellor is prepared to accept certain of the Amendments on the Paper if thereby he can facilitate the passage of the Bill. In order that the Chancellor may make his statement, and say what he is prepared to offer, and that the Committee may be in full possession of the information, I desire to move.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: With the permission of the Committee, I will explain the Amendments that the Government are prepared to accept. The first Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler) and deals with timber. It is a very important matter. I promised last year to consider this, but I could not afford it last year. It gives a substantial concession in respect to timber upon estates. The next Amendment is that in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger), and it deals with the distribution of payments on account of licence duties in certain cases. The next is also in the name of the hon. Baronet, and provides for the reduction of duty in case of Sunday and early closing. The next is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) and deals with the stamping of policies of sea insurance which are subject to contingent increases of premium. The next Amendment is also in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member
    2816
    for Ayr Burghs and deals with allowance of rates paid by the proprietor in estimating rental value for the purposes of Mineral Rights Duty. There is a discrimination in the Budget of 1909–10 as against Scottish royalty owners. They are charged more than English and Welsh royalty I owners are charged, and this Amendment puts them on exactly the same footing as the royalty owners in England and Wales. The next two Amendments are those standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel). It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the charge of Super-tax in the case of death, with which the first of these two I Amendments deals, was discussed at a previous sitting of the Committee. I promised to consider the matter, and to see whether it would be possible to devise an Amendment within the Rules of Order. The first of these two Amendments with regard to Super-tax does not increase the charge; it involves a reduction. Then comes the second Amendment (substituted site value, extension of benefit), and this we discussed at some length on Friday. There was a question as to whether the acceptance of the Amendment would put the Bill outside the category of a Money Bill. I am satisfied it would not, and after consultation with my advisers I am prepared to accept this I Amendment in a modified form, and I must ask the hon. and learned Member to accept it in the form submitted to him by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, and I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied to do so. Then there are some drafting Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee). These are the Amendments we are prepared to accept.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the slight alteration which the right hon. Gentleman proposes in the

    2817
    Amendment of the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Wheler), I have asked him to consult the advisers of the Government about it. I am a little in doubt about the introduction of the word "underwood" and I do not think it should appear. The concession on the question of timber is a substantial and valuable one for which my hon. Friends have pressed for three or four years and to which we attach great importance. The other concessions which the right hon. Gentleman offers are of varying degrees of value. They are not all we should like, but they are obviously all that, under the circumstances, we can hope to get. They affect the licensed trade, mineral rights, a small proportion of the shipping insurance world, the Super-tax and site value. They are fairly well spread over the different interests which are represented in the Budget, and, under all the circumstances, I think that we should be well advised on this side of the Committee to take the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman has offered us, as a result of prolonged and rather severe negotiations, rather than fight the matter out to the bitter end, when we should get none of these concessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must understand that while we undertake to use our best endeavours to bring the Debate to an early conclusion, my hon. Friends are not to be precluded from moving Amendments not accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer making what defence they think necessary and taking a division upon them. There are some Amendments "which must clearly be divided upon. The obligation he asked us to undertake is that we do our best if these concessions are made to us to facilitate the early closing of this discussion, and on those terms I think it is a bargain which we on this side would do well to accept.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: In my experience of two or three Parliaments I have noticed several bargains made between the two Front Benches, and I do not remember one of them in which the public interest has not suffered. I do not recall one where the interests of the public have been treated worse than in the bargain announced to-night. There is scarcely one of the points enumerated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as acceptable proposed by hon. Members opposite that we have not sat up year after year for the purpose of resisting because the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were satisfied that they contained vitals princi-
    2818
    pals connected with what was known as the great Budget of 1909. Now just because there is a possibility of an all-night sitting and it may be the carrying of the business of the House over another fortnight, things for which we have struggled and fought and stood for on public platforms are being whittled away by a bargain between the two Front Benches. So far as I am concerned, I do not think the business will be accelerated so much as some hon. Gentlemen imagine. No one on this side of the House ever anticipated such drastic concessions were going to be made to an Opposition. At any rate, so far as I am concerned, I make my protest against what has been done to-night. It is whittling away the main features of the Budget for which we contended three or four years ago, and if there is no one else who will vote against it, I shall do so.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to meet his friends on this side of the House and to accept the Amendments they have put down. We have two Amendments on the Paper dealing with valuation which are of very great importance.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid those Amendments are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: When they are reached I hope to show how they come within the scope of the Bill. They have been redrafted. I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to meet those if they are found to be in order. I should like to know further whether he has considered the effect of the Amendment referring to timber which he has given notice he is prepared to accept. It seems to me it is an Amendment which may very seriously affect the collection of Death Duties, and, after all, the valuation of land under the Budget of 1909–10 has greatly facilitated the collection of the Death Duties.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think we ought to discuss the merits of that Amendment on the Motion to report Progress. If the hon. Member will allow the Motion to be withdrawn, we shall be on the question in a few minutes.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to my question about the Amendment I have on the Paper?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I had gathered that my hon. Friend's Amendments were out of order, and I did not take the same care to examine them when I discovered there was no possibility of their being discussed as I certainly should otherwise. My hon. Friend proposes to submit some considerations to the Chairman, and I do not think I can say anything more until they come on later.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon. Friend has run away from his Amendment with reference to the Sugar Tax, but when these Clauses are all finished I shall claim to move it as a new Clause. I have always voted against the tax, and intend to do so this year.
    Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Timber).
    Where an estate, in respect of which Estate Duty is payable on the death of a person dying on or after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, comprises land on which timber, trees, wood, or underwood are growing, the value of such timber, trees, wood, or underwood shall not be taken into account in estimating the principal value of the estate or the rate of Estate Duty, and Estate Duty shall not be payable thereon, but shall, at the rate due to the principal value of the estate be payable on the net moneys (if any) after deducting all necessary outgoings since the death of the deceased, which may from time to time be received from the sale of timber, trees, or wood when felled or cut during the period which may elapse until the land, on the death of some other person, again becomes liable or would but for this Sub-section have become liable to Estate Duty, and the owners or trustees of such land shall account for and pay the same accordingly as and when such moneys are received, with interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum from the date when such moneys are received.
    This Section shall take effect in substitution for the first paragraph of Sub-section five of Section sixty-one of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and that paragraph and Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1911, are hereby repealed.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WHELER: I beg to move the Clause standing in my name. The present aggregation of timber with the other portions of
    2820
    the estate has undoubtedly worked considerable hardship, especially in the case of estates where the value of the agricultural land has been low, because it has increased the percentage of duty payable. I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted the Amendment and I can only say that the acceptance of that Amendment will undoubtedly encourage many to do much more in the way of improving their woods, and allowing timber to grow until it is absolutely fit to be cut. It will also encourage those who have in the past neglected their underwoods, and it should in no way be looked upon as a gift to vested interests. AH industries which require timber will in the long run benefit.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Are we to have no explanation of this Clause from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is an Amendment I promised to consider last year, as I felt a case had been made out for giving it special consideration. We are making a real effort at the afforestation of waste lands, and we thought it would be mistaken policy to do anything that would encourage the stripping of land already having timber growing upon it. This has been the policy of successive Liberal Chancellors of the Exchequer, and I am not departing in the slightest degree from the principles laid down in the Budgets of 1894 and 1909. Concessions in this direction have been made from time to time.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not wonder that the landlords are extremely pleased with this Amendment. It is one that will be of great value to them. I should like the Committee to understand what is our argument. It is said that the growing of timber should be encouraged in this country by exemption from Death Duties, but I maintain that the arguments in favour of the exemption of timber are every bit as strong for the extension of the building of workmen's dwellings. Why is timber the one improvement upon the land which is to be exempted from Death Duties? Under this Clause any timber upon the land, including trees, wood, or underwood, are to be exempted from the Death Duties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will read the Clause. [Clause read.] Its object is to exempt timber from the payment of Death Duties, so long as it is not felled, and making them payable when it is felled.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the hon. Member aware that that is the law at the present time?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: In that case I do not. want it to be extended to the Death Duties.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: It is now.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then why this new Clause?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: It is the aggregation.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Then I do not understand the object of the Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) has not had time to look at the position. Timber was exempted from the payment of Death Duties until it is felled, and the proceeds realised. Death Duty only accrued due when the timber was felled. That is part of our policy to discourage the unnecessary felling of timber. Although timber was not charged Death Duty until it was felled, it was valued for the purpose of increasing the aggregate value of the estate, and it might put up the scale, although the landlord was exempted from the payment of Death Duty until he realised. This is purely the completion of a concession which had already been made in respect of timber. There is no departure in principle. It is carrying out the principle already adopted in previous Budgets.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The principle is a bad principle. The principle is to encourage the growth of timber for the construction of game preserves. We want more houses for the people, and fewer woods for the game. The law, as it stands at present, is so devised as to exempt timber from Death Duties until it is felled. That law has been passed in order to encourage the construction of covers for game. Trees and underwoods are mentioned here.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that underwoods are used for hurdle-making, hop poles, and many other purposes, and that underwoods of good chestnut or hazel, if properly grown and cared for, and, if the rabbits are kept down, which is a most essential thing, you can get nearly £1 an acre for it; and there is a great deal more underwood grown for that purpose than is grown simply for game?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I think he will find, particularly in the southern counties, that most of the underwood which used to be worth £1 an acre is bringing in nothing at all, and that casks are made now from imported wood, and these woods are far more largely used for game preserving. But even if they are used for useful purposes, even if all the underwood and the timber is a valuable product created by labour out of the soil, I would still say it is more important to exempt buildings from Death Duties than to exempt timber or underwood. In one case you are exempting something that is useful in certain forms and in the other case you are exempting the houses of the people. I do not approve of the original exemption of timber and woods, whether used for game preserving or for purposes of production. I should vote against any extension of that principle. Instead of extending the principle, it ought to be reduced. Either exempt all improvements or no improvements. If you are going to exempt improvements from taxation, it would be far better to exempt those which are necessary to the well-being of the people instead of those which are merely necessary for game preserving.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I confess, after the short discussion that has taken place, the Clause is not nearly so bad as I thought it was, but you must excuse us because anything accepted by the Opposition is opposed to the interests of the general public. It is rather surprising if there is nothing in it that the Opposition are so delighted with the concession. What do the officials of the Chancellor of the Exchequer imagine is the sum involved in this concession? To all the other Amendments suggested by the Opposition the Chancellor stated the sum involved to the Exchequer. The question of concessions to this interest and that interest would naturally be discussed in Committee, but no interest has been considered except the ownership of trees and woods and forests. The only concessions the right hon. Gentleman is making are to the extremely wealthy sections of the community, those who can afford to have great parks and woods, and immense territories entirely at their disposal, while other people are almost aliens, as it were, in their own land. After all, the right hon. Gentleman might have made concessions to some more desirable and deserving section of the community than those who are already by far too wealthy.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I want to know what this concession is worth. We are entirely in the dark. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), says it is a valuable concession.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is very difficult to estimate the value of the concession for this reason: A special concession has already been made with regard to this very timber. I have already explained to my hon. Friend that timber is exempt already except when felled. We have not up to the present had any experience as to what that concession really means. If we had a valuation showing what the value of the timber in England is at the present moment, I could answer my hon. Friend, but it is quite impossible for me to say what the concession in regard to timber is worth. It has to be divided into two parts. That is the difficulty, otherwise I would be very happy to answer the question.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It seems to me that the Treasury might give some estimate of what the concession is to be. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) pointed out that the annual revenue in the case of underwood differed materially from that of the rest of the subjects mentioned in the Amendment.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I said that, underwood properly cultivated in many parts of the country will yield a revenue equal to £1 an acre a year. In every twelfth or fourteenth year that would be the revenue when the felling takes place.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he cuts his underwood every twelfth or fourteenth year and that it yields £12 or £14 an acre.
    He thereby differentiates underwood from wood that requires time to mature both because it is a source of annual revenue, and also because it is not so important to encourage the growing of underwood as the growing of forest trees. I suggest that the new Clause should be amended by the omission of the words "or underwood." Directly you include underwood you create infinite difficulties for the valuers. It is grown in plots of two to five acres, and if you exempt from the total value of an estate as ascertained under the Finance Act of 1909–10, the value of every little plot of wood which may be called underwood, you are going to make endless difficulties for the valuers.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is absolutely wrong in thinking that it would involve delay in valuation. It would be quite the reverse, and from that point of view it is an undoubted advantage.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Under the valuation of the Budget all the timber has to be valued at present on these estates. This has to be the full site value3 the gross value including timber as well. If, after you have made that gross valuation, you have to deduct certain improvements made upon land you are going to prolong the valuation and make it more difficult to arrive at the true value. Therefore I think that the word "underwood" should be deleted.
    Mr. PETO: Is it in order to move the omission of "underwood" unless the hon. Member explains where "wood" ends and "underwood" begins?
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 17;

    Division No. 200.]

    AYES.

    [11.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Archer-Shee, Major

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Armitage, R.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Campion, W. R.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Boland, John Pius

    Cassel, Felix

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Baird, J. L.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cautley, H. S.

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Chambers, James

    Balcarres, Lord

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boyton, James

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

    Brace, William

    Clough, William

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Brady, P. J.

    Coztes, Major sir Edward Feetham

    Barnston, H.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Crooks, William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hudson, Walter

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Cullinan, John

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Dawes, J. A.

    Jessel, Capt. H. M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Delaney, William

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Devlin, Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Dillon, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Reddy, M.

    Duffy, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Kilbride, Denis

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Eyres-Mensell, Bolton M.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Falle, B. G.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Fell, Arthur

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Field, William

    Lundon, T.

    Rowlands, James

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Royds, Edmund

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Gibbs, G. A.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Gill, A. H.

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Glanville, H. J.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sheehy, David

    Glazebrook, Capt, Philip K.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Shortt, E.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Malcolm, Ian

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Stanier, Beville

    Goulding Edward Alfred

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Greene, W. R.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Swift, Rigby

    Gretton, John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Molloy, Michael

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mooney, John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Gulland, John William

    Morgan, George Hay

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Morison, Hector

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Hackett, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Munro, R.

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Needham, Christopher Thomas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hancock, John George

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nield, Herbert

    Wardle, George J.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Webb, H.

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

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Doherty, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Dowd, John

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    O'Malley, William

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

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

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    O'Shee, James John

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Hills, John Waller

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Yerburgh, Robert

    Hinds, John

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Younger, Sir George

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    2826

    2827

    NOES.

    Clynes, John R.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Wedgwood and Mr. Price.

    O'Grady, James

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the words "or underwood" ["trees, wood or underwood."]
    The object of the new Clause is to bring estates down in value, so that they may be assessed at the lower value. If timber is exempted I do think we might at least leave underwood and I submit it is a form of improvement which should not be exempted.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member's Amendment were carried would it not have the effect of increasing the charge on the subject?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Clause has not yet been added to the Bill, and the question of how much of it shall stand part has still to be decided. Therefore, I submit, the Amendment is in order. The object of exempting growing timber is obviously to encourage the growing of timber. But if the growing of underwood is a marketable proposition, if underwood can be sold for £14 an acre every fourteen years, let it stand on its own legs like any other form of agriculture. But if underwoods are used principally for game and rabbits—[Opposition laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think that they are the only people who know what these underwoods are used for.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member would address the Chair and confine his remarks to the Amendment it would conduce to greater order in Debate.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I was led away by the hilarity on the other side. A great deal of the underwood is used for game preserving, and anything which by the exemption of underwood tends to bring estates down below the limiting value for Death Duties will tend to encourage the growing of underwood and thereby encourage game preserving. I do not think the concession will amount to very much, but insofar as it reduces estates below £100,000, £500,000, or £1,000,000, you will have an enormous reduction in the amount of duty payable
    2828
    by the landowners. If in any case it brought an estate below £1,000,000 there would be a saving of many thousands of pounds in Death Duties to the owner, and all simply to encourage the growing of underwoods. So far as underwoods are a business proposition, they should stand on their own legs like the building of cottages. [Opposition laughter.] I submit to the Committee that the omission of these words would serve, in the first place, to keep up the public revenue from the Death Duties, because they would prevent the estate going accidentally below the £100,000 or £1,000,000, as the case might be; and, in the second place, it is not desirable that any remission from taxation should cover a single yard of the extension of the game preserves of this country.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have considered the point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester, I do not think it quite applicable, because the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would not be to add a tax on somebody's shoulders. It may be put this way: It is the mitigation or minimising of the benefit proposed by the new Clause, which has just been read a second time, and which is now, of course, open for Amendment in detail.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In reply to my hon. Friend, I hope that now he has made his protest against the whole Clause, he will see his way not to press his Amendment. If a concession is to be made at all, certainly it is in the interests of the revenue that it should be made in this form, because he had already included underwood in the concession which I have described. My hon. Friend said something about delay. There is no doubt as to the delay that would be caused if you had to separate the value of the underwood from the timber, and to go scavengering around the estate for the underwood.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I suggest that it is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go around scavengering in the way he has described. There is one thing

    2829
    we ought to have had in this discussion and that is the intervention of the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) and Leigh (Mr. Raffan). There is as much rottenness in these arguments as in those for the single tax.
    Mr. RAFFAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North-West Norfolk and myself would not apologise for hon. Members either on this side or the other who are landlords' friends. Personally it is a matter of deep regret to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is hated by the vested interests in this country, and beloved in the cottage homes of the people, should, to the accompaniment of cheers from the other side, as well as with cheers from this side, have taken up an attitude that will convey deep disappointment to many of those—[HON. MEMBERS: "Single taxers"]—not merely single taxers, but to many of those who look to him to redress the grievances which are very real in this country at the present time. I submit to the Committee that the arguments advanced in support of this Clause are entirely destructive of the proposal to retain the words proposed to be left out.
    It is urged that if you continue to make timber pay death duties in the manner proposed you are preventing the land being put to its best use, which is the growth of timber. My hon. Friends and I are not entirely convinced that that would be the case, but so far as the argument is sound it is an argument about which we are in sympathy, but can that view be urged with regard to underwood. There can be no doubt that a large amount of underwood in the country is used for cover for pheasants, and that is the reason why hon. Gentlemen on the other side are so keenly interested in maintaining the Clause in its present form. What does that mean in many cases in this country? My attention was drawn last week to a case in which a farmer, farming 500 acres, a man who has voted Tory at every election, has now been served with notice to quit his farm by the landlord because he complained of the destruction on his farm by game, and this man will be compelled to emigrate because of his action. That man is not a single taxer, but a roan who by hard experience has now found out what landlordism is.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. The Amendment before the Committee is the question as to whether underwood should be exempt from the Clause, and
    2830
    may I ask Mr. Whitley whether the action of a farmer who voted Tory has anything to do with it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was waiting to see how it was to be connected. I understand the argument to be that the retention of the word "underwood" would encourage the presence of game. I think that is an argument, but I do not think it would be right to allow the matter to be diverted into a debate on the preservation of game.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I simply rose, Mr. Whitley, in response to the taunt from the landlord representative on this side of the House and the cheers of the landlord party on the other side, to point out that the retention of these words are welcomed by the landlord interest and are not in the interests of the tenants.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not own any land.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I only rose to point out that a man like this evicted farmer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—an evicted farmer apparently is a cause for joke to the landlord party. It is no joke to these poor men who do not grasp economic principles, who do not talk about a "single tax," who know what landlord-made laws mean, what game preserving means, and what the encouragement of this underwood means. All these things are turning these men from the party they believed would serve the farming interest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has their interests at heart, but who has taken a mistaken sense of his duty in these cases. I regret that he has accepted this Amendment. If my hon. Friend insists on going to a division, if I stand alone I shall go with him. I know if we take a Division it is necessary for somebody to stand at the door, and for somebody else to go inside. I object to these further concessions to-night, and I shall use every opportunity given to me to go into the Lobby against them.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is it not the case that this Amendment makes absolutely no difference.
    The CHAIRMAN: I should not like to say precisely what the difference is by the use of these words, but I cannot say that they would make no difference. I think they would involve certain consequential Amendments later on.
    Mr. BOOTH: Would the deletion of these words apply to fields growing willows? If it means that land growing willows as well as timber for a long period, I should be inclined to vote for the Amendment. I do not think such land ought to receive this consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: I wish to know whether heather is underwood? If heather is underwood—and I do not see why it should not be, judging from the discussion we have listened to—this is going to affect something between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 acres of land in Scotland which is preserved for the purposes of game; and, if that be so, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think heather is any more underwood than thistles.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: It does not really matter what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks, but what the judges decide hereafter. Here you are giving them an opportunity of denning underwood, and, when judges got an opportunity of denning an Act of Parliament, they are very apt to define it in the interests of the landlord party.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to say that; and I must ask him to withdraw it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I withdraw it with pleasure. At present it is easy enough to calculate the timber. It is made a deduction, and duty is not charged upon it. Osier beds and underwood are included, and no exemption on behalf of them is claimed, but, now you make this Amendment, and allow deductions not for the purposes of the Death Duties but for the purpose of getting below a certain limit so that a lower rate of Death Duty is charged, you will have every exemption claimed that is possible. At present it does not pay landlords to claim exemptions from underwood, osier beds, heather, or whatever it may be because owing to the frequency with which osier beds are cut postponement is not long. Directly you give the landlord the opportunity of using the value of all his underwood of all sort and kind as a deduction so as to bring the estate under a certain Statutory value, then every landlord will claim every possible thing as underwood in order to get these very great exemptions. Therefore, in spite of what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall persist in this Amendment, and, if possible, get the Committee to vote upon it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 33.

    Division No. 201.]

    AYES.

    [12.30 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Boyton, James

    Cullinan, John

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Brady, P. J.

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Brasscy, H. Leonard Campbell

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Armitage, R.

    Buckmaster, Stanley Owen

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Delany, William

    Baird, J. L.

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dicks on, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Dillon, John

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Campion, W. R.

    Donelan, Captain A.

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duffy, William J.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cassel, Felix

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Barnston, Harry

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

    Chambers, James

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Clough, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Ffrench, Peter

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Field, William

    Black, Arthur W.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Boland, John Pius

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cotton, William Francis

    Fleming, Valentine

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Crooks, William

    Foster, Philip Staveley

    Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, Michael

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Macmaster, Donald

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Goulding Edward Alfred

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Grant, J. A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    MacGhee, Richard

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Gretton, John

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Gulland, John W.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Hackett, J.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Rowlands, James

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Royds, Edmund

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Molloy, M.

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Hancock, John George

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Morison, Hector

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

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Muldoon, John

    Sheehy, David

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Munro, R.

    Shortt, Edward

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

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Stanier, Beville

    Hayward, Evan

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Newman, John R. P.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

    Swift, Rigby

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    Nield, Herbert

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Hills, John Waller (Durham)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hinds, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Hohler, G. F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Dowd, John

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

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

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Malley, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wadsworth, John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Shee, James (Halifax)

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Jones, H, Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    White, James Douglas (Glasgow)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

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

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Younger, Sir George

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Geoffrey Howard and Cantain Guest.

    Lundon, Thomas

    NOES.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh Central)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Brace, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Clynes, John R.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wardle, George J.

    Glanville, . J.

    Morrell, Philip

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Grady, James

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Wedgwood and Mr. Raffan.

    Mr. HICKS BEACH: In view of the announcement made, I do not propose to move all my Clauses, but I wish to say a word or two about the Second Clause on the paper in my name.
    The Clause referred to by the hon. Member was in the following terms:—

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Alteration of Year deciding Grants in Aid of Local Taxation.)
    The year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and ten, shall be substituted for the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nine, in Sub-section (2) of Section eighty-eight of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and in Section eighteen of The Revenue Act, 1911.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid this Clause is out of order. As I read, it proposes to substitute a different year in the allocation of a grant in aid of local taxation, and to increase the sum paid to the local authorities while diminishing the amount paid to the Consolidated Fund. That requires a money Resolution.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Roadstone from Mineral Rights Duty.)
    It is hereby declared that roadstone shall be included in the minerals exempted from payment of Mineral Rights Duty under Section twenty, Sub-section (5) of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the new Clause be read a Second time."
    Mr. JAMES MASON: The only one of the clauses standing in my name I desire to move is this one, which deals with the exemption of roadstone, and the reason I wish very shortly to move this Clause is that this again is a question which very much interests the local authorities throughout the country, and of course adds to the already sufficiently large number of grievances which they have when they find that local taxation has to suffer for the benefit of Imperial taxes. Of course, at the present time there is no definition whatever of what a mineral is, and, so long as there is no definition, I think the ordinary man would say that a mineral was either a mineral fuel, such as coal, or one of the metalliferous ores—that is an ore from which some metal is smelted—but unfortunately the Sub-section which was introduced into the Finance Bill of 1809–10, Clause 5, Sub-section 5, dealt with a cer-
    2836
    tain number of exemptions, and of course, those exemptions have, as is very often the case, produced some considerable amount of confusion. The exemptions from this mineral rights duty include, among other things, limestone. I may say there are only seven substances mentioned—common clay, common brick clay, common brick earth, or sand, chalk, limestone, or gravel.
    It is fair to assume that these exemptions were made principally in the interest of the building trade, but, curiously enough, the question of whether limestone is exempt or not from this tax depends not upon its suitability for building, but upon the mere question of analysis as to whether or not the stone contains lime. The uses of stone, not only limestone but other stones, whether they contain lime or not, are more or less mixed up between building and road-making, so that practically the uses are the same. It is, I think, somewhat an absurd position that when different stones used on the same road merely because of a difference in chemical analysis as to whether they contain lime or not, one should pay mineral duty and another not. Another absurdity is that a great deal of the granites used, especially in the Eastern counties, have to compete with foreign granites, which come in free of duty. But, putting that on one side, I pass to the objection that local authorities are really put to an expenditure for the benefit of Imperial taxation, which is quite unjustified by any difference which can be shown between one form of rock and another which are used in the making of our roads. For that reason I think it is somewhat disappointing that the acceptance of this new Clause has not been included among those indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. I think we might at any rate reasonably expect that this question of the exemption from taxation of granite from mineral duty should be agreed to, if not this year, at any rate, in the future.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid there is no logical basis at all for this exemption. Take a quarry where you have stone setts and building stones quarried out of the same rock, and quarried by the same machinery. In that case it is very difficult to say that if that stone is used for road-making we should exempt it. But if granite is used for building stone you do not exempt. Perhaps there are many reasons why, if we exempt limestone, such exemption should be equally applicable to road stone. That is true, but I have no doubt if we had

    2837
    exempted road stone it would have been said, why not exempt something else? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I really cannot find my way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think this is really a case in which my hon. Friend must go to a Division, and I hope the Division will be taken at once. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not dealt with the point raised. What my hon. Friend complains of is that the duty as now levied differentiates between two stones used for the same purpose and in competition, one with the other, and further differentiates not only between the quarry of one owner and the quarry of another owner in this country, but also between English stone and foreign stone. It sets up, in fact, an impost against English stone without any differentiation against foreign stone. I think that is a reason for taking a Division, without any prolonged discussion.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask why if this does make a difference in favour of one stone as against another, is it not a
    perfectly simple way out of the difficulty to make your Mineral Rights Duty a true Mineral Rights Duty, and levy it upon all minerals, whether worked or not? If we had a straight tax upon mineral values, we would not have any of these difficulties. So long as it is merely a Royalty Tax, it does fall entirely upon those owners who develop their minerals, and consequently discourages development, and makes the stone more costly to the user. If the tax were levied upon the mineral values, whether used or not, it would not have the effect of discouraging production and increasing the price of stone, but would encourage production. If this does act as a discouragement to home industry—and an encouragement to foreign industry—and I think to a certain extent it would have that result—it could be easily put right by imposing your tax as a straight duty of a halfpenny in the pound on all minerals, whether they are worked or not.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 175.

    Division No. 202.]

    AYES.

    [12.50 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Ashley, W. W.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

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

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Greene, W. R.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, H.

    Gretton, John

    Rawson, Col. R. H.

    Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Bennett-Goldney Francis

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Boles, Lieut-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Stanier, Beville

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hills, J. W.

    Starkey, John R.

    Boyton, J.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Swift, Rigby

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Burgoyne, A. H.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

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

    Campion, W. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Cassel, Felix

    Knight, Captain E. A.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Chambers, James

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Macmaster, Donald

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Younger, Sir George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newman, John R. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Falle, B. G.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    James Mason and Mr. George Faber.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

    Armitage, Robert

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Shee, James John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

    Hayward, Evan

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Higham, John Sharp

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

    Boland, John Pius

    Hinds, John

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pointer, Joseph

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brace, William

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brady, P. J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea. Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clough, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (White)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lansbury, George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Crooks, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lynch, A. A.

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

    Cullinan, John

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Macpherson, James Ian

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

    Delany, William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McGhee, Richard

    Shortt, E.

    Devlin, Joseph

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Dillon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Molloy, M.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Esmonde. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Mooney, J. J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morrell, Philip

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Morison, Hector

    Wardle, George J.

    Field, William

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Munro, R.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Murray. Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gill, A. H.

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Gulland, John William

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hackett, J.

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Hancock, J. G.

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    O'Grady, James

    Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Duties on Tobacco.)
    (1) The duties of customs payable on unmanufactured tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof shall, as from the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twelve, be reduced in the case of tobacco containing fourteen pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof by one halfpenny per pound of tobacco in respect of every pound of such excess of moisture.
    (2) The amount of moisture in any tobacco for the purposes of this Section shall be ascertained in the same manner in all respects as the amount of moisture in tobacco for the purposes of drawback is ascertained by virtue of any enactment, applicable thereto.
    Motion made and question proposed, "That the new Clause be read a second time."
    Lord H. CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: In moving the Second Reading of this Clause, I wish to say that it will remove, if accepted by the Committee, a

    2841
    very substantial grievance under which manufacturers at Nottingham, Leicester, and Rugby are suffering. The manufacturer of pipe and cigarette tobacco can dry tobacco down to ten per cent. of moisture, but the cigar manufacturer cannot do that, because to dry the tobacco down spoils its flavour for his purpose. Therefore he is obliged to import tobacco in a wet state, and he is penalised on that account. In fact, the maker of cigars has to pay as much as 3s. or 4s. more than the Finance Act intended he should do.
    1.0 A.M.
    All we ask is that when the manufacturer has more than ten per cent. of moisture in his tobacco he should have the right to have a sample taken, and should have returned to him one halfpenny per pound of tobacco in respect of every pound over fourteen per cent. of moisture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may say that this is an impossible and cumbrous arrangement, but, after all, it is only what the manufacturer of tobacco does, it is a right he has, when he wishes to export tobacco. We ask that the procedure should be similar for import as for export. Manufacturers of Leicester, Nottingham, and Kugby have often been to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his representatives, by deputation, in order to get grievances remedied, and we have always had a very sympathetic hearing. But when we come to raise the question in this House, we always find the Chancellor adopts a non possumus attitude. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has not got a leg to stand upon. It is a monstrous grievance that manufacturers should have to pay duty on water and not on tobacco at all. We are told that Free Trade finance does not put a burden upon industry and does not encourage the formation of trusts, but here is a case in which it does both of these things. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to make this concession.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Like some of my predecessors, I have gone as fully as possible into this question, and have received deputations on the subject. Although I agree there are some grievances that should be met, this Amendment cannot meet those grievances, and I have never yet been able to find any practical manner in which these grievances could be met. Against this particular Amendment there are two, as I think, conclusive arguments. The first is the necessary reduction of
    2842
    revenue it would entail for which we make no provision this year. The second is that I am advised that this Amendment would not have the effect the Noble Lord suggests; it would not have any effect upon what he calls "trust tobacco," and the only result, if it were practicable, would be to make a special concession to luxury in the shape of the very expensive tobacco rather than to the less expensive tobacco. If a concession is made at all, it should be for the less expensive tobacco. Then it would be quite impossible to make the various grades the Noble Lord suggests in the practical working of the Customs. In the manner in which tobacco is imported in comparative large packets, the percentage of moisture varies in the packets, and it is almost impossible, except with an immense staff such as we have not got, to carry out the Noble Lord's suggestion. I hope, however, that he will not take this as a final answer, or conclude that nothing can be done in the future. I acknowledge that small tobacco manufacturers have a grievance at present, and if there is some method by which they can be put upon a level with the large ones, and if the cheaper rather than the more expensive tobacco can be relieved, I am quite prepared to consider the matter on some future occasion. It would be quite impossible to collect the duty under the system the Noble Lord proposes.
    Mr. BAIRD: I am sorry that, in spite of the conciliatory attitude adopted by the Secretary to the Treasury, I cannot accept his answer as satisfactory on behalf of those in Rugby interested in this question. When he speaks of the revenue not being able to stand the reduction entailed by the alteration proposed in the Amendment, that seems to me the strongest possible condemnation of the line he has taken up. He does not deny that the revenue is derived from taxes on water instead of on tobacco. If you tax water when you pretend to be taxing tobacco you should take some steps to remedy the injustice. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has been advised that the Amendment would not have the effect that my Noble Friend desires, that depends upon his direction and advice; those interested in the trade and those who give employment in the trade are of opinion that this Amendment does meet the case, and that if it were carried the cigar manufacturers of the country would be enabled to supply cheap cigars very much better

    2843
    than they can at present—the cigars looked forward to by the poor on Saturday night. It is perfectly justifiable and it ought to be the business of the Government to secure that that kind of luxury is relieved—any cigar is, of course, a luxury, but it is a luxury which to a hard-worked man comes to be a necessity, it is a luxury to which he is entitled at the end of a hard week's work.
    There is another point to which I should like to call attention. The right hon. Gentleman said we must not consider his answer as final. But when are we to get a final answer? We have been on numberless deputations to him; we have always been received with great civility on these occasions, but we have not received any answer worth twopence. We are now told that we are not to consider his answer as final. I hope we may look to receive some support from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) who has been on these deputations and who has more Constituents than either the Noble Lord or myself interested in this business. I hope he will find himself in a position to bring pressure upon the Government which will be more effective than any pressure from this side of the House. This is a question which affects a great many employers and the daily wage of a large number of people who depend upon the cigar manufacturing industry of this country. There is all the difference in the world between those large concerns, which, on account of the capital at their disposal are in a position to have tobacco dried at a very short distance from home,
    in Holland and other countries, and those other concerns equally deserving.
    On behalf of the small concerns I trust the Government will see their way to reconsider their decision in this matter. In my own particular case the reason why I support this Amendment is that there is a tobacco factory in my division which employs not a large number of people, but which is very hard hit by the fact that they have to pay duty not on tobacco but on water. They rightly consider that an injustice. There is no denying that if you put in your schedule a duty of so much on tobacco, and then charge duty on water, there is something wrong somewhere. It is to remedy that grievance that I venture, most respectfully, to invite the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. He cannot expect people to accept the non-final answer that he gives us both when we go on deputations to him and now in the House. Surely the people at his disposal in his Department have the means of ascertaining some method of meeting this grievance. He does not deny that it is a grievance. He says that our proposals do not meet the grievance. Very well, then, it is his business to find some means for meeting the grievance. We cannot be expected year after year to be put off with a conciliatory, civil and obliging answer, but which has no more substance in it than the words of the right hon. Gentleman to-night. I hope the hon. Member for Leicester may see his way to support this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 168.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Allowance of the Rates paid by the Proprietor in Estimating Rental Value for Purposes of Mineral Rights Duty.)
    (1) The amount of rent taken to be the rental value under Sections twenty and twenty-one of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, of a right to work minerals (where the right is the subject of a mining lease) or of a mineral wayleavc shall, in cases where the lessor is liable under any Act to pay any sum on account of rates, be the sum which would be payable as rent if the lessee were liable instead of the lessor.

    (2) Where for the purpose of ascertaining the rental value of minerals which are being worked by the proprietor, it is necessary for the Commissioners to determine the sum which would have been received as rent by the proprietor if the right to work the minerals had been leased to a working lessee, that rent shall be determined on the basis of the lessee paying all rates in respect of the minerals, notwithstanding that the case may be one in which the proprietor would have been liable to pay the rates or some part thereof.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Clause, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to accept it, I need not trouble the Committee by making a speech upon it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Baronet says, I did promise him that I
    2854
    would accept this Clause, and I think the case he made for it is perfectly consistent, because unless an alteration of this kind be made in the law, the Scottish landlord would be paying a higher rate than the English landlord with respect to the same class of property, inasmuch as he starts by paying a proportion of the rates. The English landlord may be paying too little or too much—
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: He pays nothing.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate, the Scottish landlord is paying, and it is rather unfair, as the Committee will see, that because he is paying a proportion of the rates he should for that reason have to pay more in respect of Mineral Rights Duty. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the hon. Baronet's new Clause.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think that that is quite how the tax works out, and I will tell the Committee why. We all know that Scotchmen do not pay anything unless they get full value for it, and that is what happens in this case. It is true that in Scotland the proprietor pays one-half or two-thirds of the rates, but the consequence is that in Scotland landlords have been able to receive a much higher rent for the same class of coal royalties than they have in England. Instead of relieving them of taxation, I think the same principle ought to be applied to owners in all parts of the Kingdom. As it is you will by this Clause only be making a present to the Scottish landlords. It may on the face of it seem just, but I think the Scottish landlords have had their pound of flesh by getting an increased rental.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider what it would mean if this proposal were made exactly the other way round. If we proposed to charge the landlords in England rates in addition to their royalty tax there would immediately be a great outcry that we were breaking contracts, and the landlord party on the other side would be up in arms against it. What are the facts? There has been an arrangement come to between the lessor and lessee which has taken into account the rates as well as the royalty on the coal. In Scotland the landlord has undertaken to pay half the rates and the lessee the other half. They make their own bargain on their own terms, and in England the parties or bargainers make their contracts

    2855
    on English lines. After these bargains have been made you are deliberately going by this new Clause to give a bonus to Scotch landlords. Suppose it had been the other way round, and you were proposing to put an extra tax on English landlords because they do not pay the rates, there would, as I have said, immediately be a great howl about breaking contracts. The fact is that to exactly the extent that English coalowners are competing with Scottish coalowners you are breaking contracts by this proposed change. You are, that is to say, making it more difficult for English coalowners to compete with Scottish coalowners by making this change in the basis of taxation. It all comes from trying to make artificial arrangements to suit all the different cases of bargaining between two parties. If instead of having a tax on royalties you had simply a straightforward tax on mineral values, whether used or not, in Scotland as well as in England, then no difficulty of this sort would have arisen. It would have been paid uniformly by all owners on the market value of their coal, and by that method, I submit, you would have got rid of the absurdity of our present system.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know whether the hon. Baronet, the Member for Mansfield (Sir Arthur Markham) is prepared to carry his opposition to the Clause to a division, but, if so, I think I should be bound to associate myself with him. I attach considerable importance to the question of mineral wayleaves, and I have always held the view that if you attempt to tax wayleaves at all you ought to put on a substantial tax. I should judge the case of a wayleave entirely differently from that of a mineral royalty, because the owners who initiated this kind of legislation in bygone generations have themselves not recognised the principle of way-leaves as against the public. What I mean is this. A landlord who has a narrow strip of land thinks that he should charge the utmost he can possibly get from anyone who takes a truck of coal beneath that strip, and I would turn that legislation against the coalowners. They themselves go under commons and roadside strips, and never pay wayleave to the public. Therefore, if those who represent the landlord interest consider it justifiable to extract exorbitant rent for wayleaves from those who get minerals and have to transport them from one piece of ground to
    2856
    another, they can have no ground of complaint against the public if they exact way-leaves when the owners go under a public road or common. I merely throw that out as a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for future Budgets; but I must say candidly, as one who is as familiar with this question as anyone in the House of Commons except the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), that when the hon. Baronet (Sir George Younger) brings this forward as a new Clause I do not think he is really doing his friends any service at all. The more the subject is discussed, the more it is brought before the notice of the people, the sooner will come the awakening. I ventured to give that warning to hon. Gentlemen opposite a year ago, and I repeat it for their benefit now.
    It seems nothing but pure selfishness on the part of owners to exact the wayleaves they do from commercial industries when they are not prepared for a moment to admit the same principle themselves if they go underneath a roadside strip or a common. How is the thing worked? A commercial firm, having sunk their shaft, having embarked a large amount of capital in the enterprise, and having gathered together the money to house their workers, have to calculate what it will cost to bring the coal from an adjoining estate or plot up that pit shaft. The royalty owner, who is very cute, calculates as nearly as he can the cost, so that it will pay the firm to acknowledge his wayleave rather than sink another shaft. In that way he exploits the industry as much as he can. Just because of the mere accident that he owns a narrow strip across which the coal passes. There is not the least justification for a man possessing that kind of right, and I repeat that I would tax these way-leaves very heavily, especially as they are a burden upon industry in the way I have indicated. I am with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham). It simply means putting more money into the pockets of the owners of these minerals in Scotland. If it was for the relief of industry, it might be a very different matter. If there is any voting against a Clause like this, I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 34.

    Division No. 203.]

    AYES.

    [1.15 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harris, Henry Percy

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

    Chambers, J.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hills, John Waller

    Barnston, Harry

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hudson, Walter

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Bigland, Alfred

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Boles, Lieut.-Col Dennis Fortescue

    Fleming, Valentine

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Boyton, James

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Bull, Sir William James

    Gouldlng, Edward Alfred

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Greens, Walter Raymond

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Gretton, John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Campion, W. R.

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Cassel, Felix

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Roberts, S. (Sheflield, Ecclesall)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Ronaldshay, Earl ol

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Royds, Edmund

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Newman, John R. P.

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

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Willoughby, Mapor Hon. Claud

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Stanier, Beville

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Stewart, Gershom

    Younger, Sir George

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Swift, Rigby

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

    Baird and Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    O'Shee, James John

    Armitage, Robert

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

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Baker, Joseph Allen

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hayward, Evan

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Hinds, John

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Brace, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Clancy, Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Clough, William

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Clynes, John R.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lansbury, George

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tynesde)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Rowlands, James

    Crooks, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

    Crumley, Patrick

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Cullinan, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scott, A. McCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    McGhee, Richard

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

    Dawes, J. A.

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sheehy, David

    Delany, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Shortt, Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Devlin, Joseph

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Dillon, John

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Molloy, Michael

    Tennant, Harold John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Mooney, John J.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Morrell, Philip

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Wadsworth, J.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Wardle, George J.

    Field, William

    Munro, Robert

    Webb, H.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Needham, Christopher

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Gulland, John William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hackett, John

    O'Donneil, Thomas

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hancock, J. G.

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

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. William Jones.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Malley, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 204.]

    AYES.

    [1.50 a.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Nolan, Joseph

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Armitage, Robert

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Baird, J. L.

    Gretton, John

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

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

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

    Gulland, John William

    O'Malley, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

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

    Hackett, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    O'Shee, James John

    Barnston, H.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hancock, John George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Hayward, Evan

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Major H. (Abingdon)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boles Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hills, John Waller

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hinds, John

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

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rawson, Col. Richard H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Reddy, Michael

    Bull, Sir William James

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Redmond, J. E. (Watertord)

    Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Campion, W. R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Joyce, Michael

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cassel, Felix

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rowlands, Thomas

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Royds, Edmund

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel)

    Chambers, James

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Clough, William

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Lundon, T.

    Sheehy, David

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Shortt, Edward

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Maclean, Donald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Stanier, Beville

    Crooks, William

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Crumley, Patrick

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cullinan, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Swift, Rigby

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    McGhee, Richard

    Tennant, Harold John

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Dawes, J. A.

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Delany, William

    Malcolm, Ian

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Devlin, Joseph

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Dillon, John

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Walrond Hon. Lionel

    Duffy, William J.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Molloy, Michael

    Webb, H.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Mooney, John J.

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

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Morgan, George Hay

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Morrell, Philip

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Morison, Hector

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Ffrench, Peter

    Muldoon, John

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Field, William

    Munro, Robert

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Younger, Sir George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Newdegate, F. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    2858

    2859

    NOES.

    Brace, William

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Roberts, George (Norwich)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Lansbury, George

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Wadsworth, John

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Grady, James

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pointer, Joseph

    Hogge, James Myles

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Hudson, Walter Leigh

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Booth and Sir Arthur Markham.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    The CHAIRMAN: The Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh and others is out of order on the ground that it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether you have passed over the Amendment standing in my name?
    The CHAIRMAN: It stands in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh first.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: No, that is a subsequent Clause. The one standing in my name relates to the definition of site value.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was not referring to that one. The Clause to define the site value is, however, outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On what grounds do you rule it outside the scope of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to provide a new form of site value which will more accurately register those values upon which the rates are levied.
    The CHAIRMAN: It has nothing to do with finance. Suppose the hon. Member proposed a Clause that all the houses in the country should be valued. That would be outside the scope of the Bill; but if he proposed that every house should be taxed ad valorem on that valuation that would be in order, except that it would require a new resolution.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it be in order to move to substitute this valuation before the full site value already in the Bill?
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member proposed it in that form I should have to consider whether that imposed additional taxation on any one of His Majesty's subjects. If it reduced the taxation it would be in order, but if it increased the taxation upon anyone it would require a resolution. The same thing will apply to the second Amendment standing in the name.
    2860
    of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. It is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, I may say that the object of the second Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to make the valuation public. Under Clause 30 of the original Finance Act (1909–10) the Commissioners are given certain powers as to imparting information. In Sub-section 2 of that Clause occur these words:—
    "The Commissioners shall furnish to any person interested in the land, or to any person authorised by any person so interested, on his application" etc., "copies of any particulars so recorded by them relating to the land," etc.
    The object of the second Amendment we have on the paper is to amend that Sub-section so that under Clause 30 the Commissioners can furnish information regarding the valuation to any person whether he is interested in the land or not. I submit that a Clause in the Finance Act of this year which simply modifies a Clause in the Finance Act of two years ago cannot be outside the scope of this Finance Bill and that therefore we are justified in bringing forward this Amendment, so as to correct and bring up to date this particular Clause 30 which deals simply with the question of the publication of the valuation.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment has nothing to do with any tax either in the preceding Budget, in the Finance Act, or in this Finance Bill. Therefore it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I submit respectfully that I am justified in pressing this point, which is very important. The Commissioners are entitled to give information to any person interested in the land. It has actually been held doubtful whether that does not already give the Commissioners power to supply to any person

    2861
    interested in another piece of land the particulars about this land. If "people interested in the land" includes people who have mortgages on the land, and people who receive ground rents or tithes from it, all these people are authorised by this Sub-section 2 of Clause 30 to have a valuation supplied to them on payment of a fee of 2s. 6d. It is simply a question of who are the people to be entitled, outside the owner of the land, to information of the valuation. I submit that it is in order to extend the category of persons who shall have the power to inspect this valuation to the whole of the ratepayers in the district just in the same way as the present valuation lists are open to any ratepayer.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must hold to my ruling.
    Mr. PRICE: On a point of Order. How is it possible to find out whether the valuation is a correct one unless you make the valuation public?
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of merits, not of Order. The hon. Member can argue that at a later stage.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I ask your definite ruling, Sir, on this point. Is it not within the scope of the Finance Act of this year to extend the category of persons who are entitled to see the valuation?
    An HON. MEMBER: No.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: You are not the Chairman. Are we not entitled to increase the category of persons who are entitled to inspect the valuation to those who are as ratepayers interested in the valuation?
    The CHAIRMAN: No. If I allow this, it would permit all kinds of things quite foreign to the finance of the year to be proposed in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: That seems to make it impossible to carry any Amendment to a Clause in a past Finance Act unless the Clause deals actually with finance. Here is a question which deals with the machinery of certain taxation and you rule that it is out of order to move an Amendment to a Clause in the Finance Act which deals with that finance. That ruling goes rather wide of the mark. I quite agree that your ruling on the first of these proposed new Clauses is covered by the fact that it is foreign to the business of the Finance Act; but this second Clause deals simply with an existing Clause in an
    2862
    existing Finance Act, and I submit that an Amendment to a Clause in an existing Finance Act is within the scope of a subsequent Finance Act.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid my ruling must stand. Although it is in form an Amendment of an existing Clause it is in effect an addition of a subject quite outside the scope of the existing or the proposed taxes.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Distribution of Payments on Account of Licence Duties in certain cases. 10 Edw. 7, c. 8.)
    Where the licensed premises are held under a lease or agreement for lease
    2846
    made before the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which does not contain or import any covenant, agreement, or undertaking on the part of the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease

    2847
    to obtain a supply of intoxicating liquor from the grantor of the lease or agreement for lease, the lessee under such lease or agreement for lease shall be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to recover as a debt due from, or deduct from any sum due to, the grantor of such lease or agreement for lease so much of any increase of the duty payable in respect of the licence under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, as may be agreed upon as proportionate to any increased rent or premium payable in respect of the premises being let as licensed premises, and, in default of agreement, the amount proportionate to such increased rent or premium shall be determined in manner directed by rules of court, by a county court in England or Ireland and by a sheriff court in Scotland.
    The words "lease," "leased," "agreement for lease," and "lessee" in this Section include sub-lease, sub-leased, agreement for sub-lease, and sub-lessee, respectively.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: In moving the Second Reading of this new Clause, I may say it is an old friend, and ought to have been accepted in 1909.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did promise to accept it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I want first to know the meaning of the Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is a Clause applying purely to the duty in the case of free houses. I promised it to the hon. Baronet on the Budget of 1909, but owing to the rules of the House it could not be moved on the Report stage. It really is long overdue.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: As a matter of fact, we have had no chance of studying this Clause at all. I understand the Clause is to benefit free houses over tied houses.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: No, to put the free house in the same position as the tied? house.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduction of Duty in case of Sunday and Early Closing Licences.)
    The provisions in the First Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, relating
    2848
    to the option as to Licence Duty contained in Head 3 of the provisions applicable to retailers' on-licences, shall be read as if the following words were added at the end of Head 3: "The power to obtain a licence on payment of a reduced amount of duty in the case of a six-day licence and in the case of an early-closing licence shall apply with regard to the minimum duties in above provision."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move this Clause.
    This is a very important Clause, as the Act makes the Scottish publican who only opens on six days a week pay exactly as much as the English publican who opens on seven days.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will the hon. Baronet move it in a different form?
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I will move it, then, in this form:—
    The following paragraph shall be added to Provision 3 of the Provisions applicable to retailers' on-licences in the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. The power to obtain a licence on payment of a reduced amount of duty in the case of a six-day licence or an early-closing licence shall apply to any case in which the minimum duty is payable under this Provision, but the reduction shall not operate so as to make the duty payable less than one-third of the annual licence value of the premises.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May we have from the Government some statement as to this Clause?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Really, if my hon. Friend had taken the trouble to read the margin he would have seen that the Clause proposes the reduction of duty in the case of Sunday and early-closing licences.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I know that, but I want to know what it will cost the public.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give the exact figure, but it is a small matter, certainly under £10,000.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: We have a right to know that.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Return of Duty on Single Estates.)
    (1) Where any lands and houses are managed together as one estate then, notwithstanding anything in Section sixty-nine of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, contained, the proportion of the cost to the owner of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management upon which he is entitled to a return of duty under the said section shall be deemed to be twenty-five per centum of the total outlay upon such purposes for the whole estate, and it shall not be incumbent upon such owner to appropriate expenditure in separate statements of account to the different classes of property in respect of which repayment of the duty is authorised by the said Section.

    (2) For the purposes of the said Section annual value shall be deemed to be the average of the amount of rent received by the owner during the preceding five years.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to move this Clause in the fewest possible words. The whole object of this is to assimilate the law to the existing practice in the case of all enlightened surveyors of taxes in the country. The object is to put a stop to the system, which is supposed to be rendered necessary by Sub-section 3 of Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, of separating into two different categories the expenditure in respect of maintenance, repairs, insurance, and management in the case of land and farmhouses on the one hand, and in the case of cottages on the other. The sole object of separating them is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in order to assimilate the practice to that under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894, under which an abatement of one-eighth was allowed in the case of lands, which included for this purpose farmhouses, and one-sixth in the case of cottages—that is to say, for buildings upon an estate. It is now possible to obtain an abatement of the full amount of 25 per cent., but because it is necessary to assign different properties to the different categories it becomes impossible in many cases where the expenditure upon the cottages exceeds 25 per cent., and the expenditure upon the land is almost necessarily considerably less than 25 per
    2850
    cent., to obtain an aggregate of 25 per cent. in respect of repairs over the whole of an estate.
    The right hon. Gentleman has often expressed his sympathy with the idea that every encouragement should be given to landowners to spend as much as possible upon their cottages, and the sole object of this Clause is to enable the 25 per cent. to be spent in every case, whether or not under one head the amount exceeds 25 per cent. and under the other head is less than 25 per cent. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has, I understand, already given instructions to various surveyors throughout the country to adopt this practice of allowing an aggregate of 25 per cent. without carefully criticising the two different schedules under which that percentage is allowed, and a large number of surveyors are now, contrary to the strict letter of the Act, allowing this system which I propose. All I ask is that the practice should be the same all over the country, and that, I understand, can only be done by modifying the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 69 in order that 25 per cent. may be allowed in all cases, and so give a direct encouragement to the expenditure upon cottages as contrasted with land.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand in certain districts this is the practice, and it seems to me a matter much more of administration than of amending the Finance Bill. I am told that this Clause as drafted may in some cases give greater relief than the present law, but that in the majority of cases it would give less. I do not know whether it would be quite in order for that reason, though I am not raising that point now, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to look into that matter. My desire is that those who spend money on cottages should have the full advantage of the expenditure when the duty comes to be reckoned. It would be a pleasure to me to see that that practice was put into operation.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention he has given to this point. Perhaps it might be possible on Report to draft a clause which would meet his views and mine at the same time. It is the case of small landowners which has got to be safeguarded. The only other thing I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman is that this Sub-section 3 of Section 69 has been repeatedly submitted to Counsel,

    2851
    and on each occasion so far as I am aware the considered opinion of Counsel has been to the effect that under the section as it stands it is necessary to separate out the two different kinds of property under the two different schedules. For that reason I submit there should be a differentiation under the Act.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not either on the Report stage or at any future time accept this proposal. It means that where you have two estates owned by one proprietor who spends a great deal of money on the one estate and starves the other, he is to take the money he spends on his pet estate and spread it over both estates. That seems to me very undesirable, because such expenditure is very often a wasteful form of expenditure. I do not think we want to enable a man to spend a great deal of money on one estate and use that in order to exempt another estate. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not accept this Amendment.
    Mr. BATHURST: I should like to ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Maximum Limit to Excise Licence Duty. 10 Edw. 7, c. 8.)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the duty of excise chargeable in respect of a publican's licence shall not in any case exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds, and the duty payable in respect of a beerhouse licence shall not in any case exceed one hundred and sixty-six pounds thirteen shillings and fourpence.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. GRETTON: I put down this new Clause as a possible method of dealing with the grievance of the large licensed premises. The right hon. Gentleman in almost every speech he has made on the question of licensed duty has talked of the grievance under which expensive premises in large towns labour as compared with cheaper premises. I think it is agreed on all sides that under the New Scale of Licence Duties adopted in the Budget of 1909–10, towns like London, Manchester, Birmingham and others, suffer more than
    2852
    other parts of the country. The Committee will remember that the Budget fixed the tax upon the assessed annual value at one half of that assessment. The proposal in this Clause is that there should be a maximum limit placed on the amount of the tax. Before the Budget no Licence paid a higher tax than £60. Everyone admitted that that was too low a figure to cover all cases. This Clause proposes £250. I am not going to argue to-night that this proposal is in the best form or is the best proposal that might be made, but it is, at any rate, a practical way of relieving a grievance admitted on all sides. I therefore beg to propose the Clause that stands in my name. I will only put forward one argument, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when passing the Budget through the House of Commons stated that he thought that in a very few cases indeed would the tax amount to a greater sum than £250. In that way he made it clear that he did not contemplate charging more than £250 on licensed premises, except in very rare cases. The result is that owing to the great value of premises and their sites in many large towns, in a considerable number of cases, the figure goes beyond £250 and runs up to as high as £825 and £833. I think that is a very strong reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider this proposal, and I hope he will be able to give me a favourable reply, and will afford some relief where injustice has been done.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member moved a similar Clause last year.
    Mr. GRETTON: Never before.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate, I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this Clause. The grievance of this particular class is that the licensee is taxed beyond the proportion of the trade he is making. I have no doubt there are cases of that kind, but taking them as a class, as a whole, I doubt whether they have a grievance. This, however, is a Clause which ought to be considered in connection with the re-valuation of licensed premises. To attempt to re-draft it in this way would simply be to create other grievances in connection with other classes of property.
    Mr. GRETTON: I will not ask the House to divide on this Clause to-night. I will only say that the Chancellor of the

    2853
    Exchequer is entirely mistaken in the belief that, as a class, there is no grievance in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in thinking that the valuation which is due to be made will remove this grievance. The method adopted in making the valuation has failed entirely in almost every instance to give any sensible relief from this overwhelming taxation in the case of licensed houses, which are valuable places entirely owing to their position being in the centre of a large town. I will, however, take another opportunity of pressing the matter upon the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduced Duty for Music Halls with Restricted Conditions as to Sale of Intoxicating Liquor.)
    (1) The maximum amount of duty payable in respect of a retailer's on-licence granted to the proprietor or occupier of a music hall or other similar place of public entertainment shall, if the annual value does not exceed two thousand pounds, and if the proprietor or occupier of the music hall, or other similar place of public entertainment, agrees that the conditions set out in this Section shall be a condition of his licence, be twenty pounds instead of fifty pounds.

    (2) Provision six of the provisions applicable to retailer's on-licences in the First Schedule to the Finance (1009–10) Act, 1910 (which relates to music halls included with other premises), shall, in cases where the annual value of the music hall does not exceed two thousand pounds, and the proprietor or occupier of the premises agrees that the condition set out in this Section shall be a condition of his licence, be read as if twenty pounds were substituted for fifty pounds.

    (3) The condition referred to in this Section is that no sale of intoxicating liquor shall be allowed in any part of the auditorium, and that the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be restricted to persons employed in or bonâ fide attending the performances, and to the time of the performances, and during thirty minutes immediately preceding the commencement or immediately succeeding the termination of each performance.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to move this Clause, which relates to the duty upon music halls. Much has been done by those connected with music halls to improve the class of performance. Hon. Members will be aware that a generation ago the

    2863
    music halls largely consisted of places where a man took the chair with a hammer, he went through a programme, and drinks were sold.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish our Chairman had a hammer.
    Mr. BOOTH: It was sometimes necessary to use the hammer to call the low comedians to order. This Clause is a matter of business. The theatres pay a lower duty because they are not allowed to sell drink in the auditorium, but only at the bar and in specified hours. What I submit therefore, is that where a music hall conforms to the practice of the theatre and only sells drink at bars and in restricted hours it should only pay the same duty as the theatre. I put it forward as a matter of pure commercial justice. I further claim that I ought to have the support of the Temperance party in this House, although I do not say that I have brought the Clause forward as their spokesman. I simply bring it forward as a matter of business justice, but I should think if it had any effect it would be to cause music halls in some cases to give up the sale of drink in the auditorium and be content with bars on account of the difference in the duty. Wherever that took place, I think everyone would agree it would make for the cause of temperance, and it is a matter of considerable astonishment to me that some Members of this House are asking for this Clause to be declined in the interests of temperance. I really cannot see that the facts would bear out their case. Strong efforts have been made to get the music halls to raise the tone of the performance and to have less drinking in the auditorium. The better music halls have confined the sale of intoxicating liquors to the bars, and I think this would be just another step forward in the progressive evolution of music halls. I apologise to the Committee. Last year I put this on the Notice Paper, but was not here to move it, and I am exceedingly anxious that the mere hour of the clock at which this has come on shall not lead us to do scant justice to people who embark large sums of money in a perfectly legitimate business, and who, I say, are entitled to justice at the hands of this Committee.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty of the proposed Clause is that you cannot properly compare the refreshment sold at music halls with the drink sold at theatres.
    2864
    I should have thought there was not much doubt that more liquor would be sold at a music hall than at a theatre. It does not seem very much for a house of the annual value of £2,000 to pay this licence duty, and to reduce it from £50 to £20 would be reducing it far too much. Therefore the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am sorry to hear that reply. It may be that the Government do consider that to drop from £50 to £20 is too great, but surely no one can defend the case of a music hall with drinking facilities in the auditorium as well as the bars paying exactly the same duty as a music hall which has not the same facilities. Can it be suggested that the music hall with only bars, and selling under these restricted conditions, will sell the same amount of liquor as the music hall in which it is sold in the auditorium, and where waiters go round calling "Orders, gentlemen"? I submit that you cannot upon any business footing charge the same duty upon the two classes of music halls. If the Government had a better proportion to suggest, and said that the music hall in which drink was sold in the auditorium should pay the £50, but that the music hall where drink was sold only in the bars should pay a little more than the theatre, there might be something in the argument, but they cannot defend the same rate for both kinds of music halls, because the difference in facilities is so great. I appeal to the Government that if they will consider this point between now and Report with a view to making it commercially sound and in better proportion, I am willing to withdraw the Clause, but if it is a simple negative against the Clause I shall take it to a division.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: The Government have conceded a lower rate of licence duty for public houses in Scotland which are closed on Sunday, and I submit the case now put before them by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is exactly on all fours with that case. My hon. Friend suggests that a music hall which does not allow drinking in the auditorium should be treated on better terms so far as the licence is concerned than a music hall which does allow drinking in the auditorium, and just as we supported the concession to the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir George Younger) because we believed it would induce more public houses to close on Sunday, so, I think, those of us who are in favour of

    2865
    temperance ought to vote in favour of this Amendment, because that too will induce music halls, in order to get the advantage of the lower duty, to cease the sale of drink in the auditorium and to confine it to the bars. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him. I think the Government, seeing that they have made an exactly similar concession to
    hon. Members opposite, might make one concession such as this to hon. Members on their own side of the House.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 153.

    Division No. 205.]

    AYES.

    [2.20 a.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gastrell, Major W. (Houghton)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Barnston, Harry

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Royds, Edmund

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stanier Beville

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Boyton, James

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Swift, Rigby

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Campion, W. R.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Cassel, Felix

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Chambers, James

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Clive, Captain Percy Arthur

    Mackinder, Halford J.

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

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Macmaster, Donald

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Booth and Mr. Malcolm.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Dillon, John

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Duffy, William J.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Armitage, Robert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Bentham, G. J.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Black, Arthur W.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Boland, John Pius

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Brace, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lundon, Thomas

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Gill, A. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Greig, Col. J. W.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Gulland, John William

    Maclean, Donald

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Hackett, John

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Clough, William

    Hancock, J. G.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Clynes, John R.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    McGhee, Richard

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Crooks, William

    Hayward, Evan

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Cullinan, John

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Molloy, Michael

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hills, John Waller

    Mooney, John J.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hinds, John

    Morison, Hector

    Delany, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Muldoon, John

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Munro, R.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Pointer, Joseph

    Sheehy, David

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Shortt, Edward

    Nolan, Joseph

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Primrose, Hon. Neil James

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Tennant, Harold John

    O'Dowd, John

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Grady, James

    Reddy, Michael

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

    O'Malley, William

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wadsworth, John

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

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Webb, H.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Shee, James John

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Rowlands, James

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Parker, James Halifax

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Reversion Duty Payable at Determination, of Existing Lease.)
    It is hereby declared, for the purposes of Section 13, Sub-section (2), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, that where a lessor has entered into an agreement for a renewal of the lease with the lessee, in arriving at the amount of reversion duty payable at the determination of the then existing lease no regard shall be paid to the total value as defined by Section 25 of the abovementioned Act, but the value of the benefit accruing to the lessor upon which reversion duty is payable shall be the amount by which the total value, to be ascertained on the basis of the rent reserved and payments made in consideration of the new lease, exceeds the total value at the time of the original grant of the then existing lease, exceeds the total value at the time the provisions set out in Section 13, Sub-section (2), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. BOYTON: I beg formally to move the Second Reading of this Clause. I had hoped that this proposal would meet with the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it has not been accepted by him, and at this late hour it would not be desirable that I should enter at length upon a somewhat involved question like this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can assure me that on the Report stage the matter will receive his consideration, provided that in the meantime I put a case before him, I shall be content to let the matter stand over. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do that.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman has only asked me whether I will consider the question raised in his
    2868
    new Clause between now and the Report Stage. I have no difficulty in saying that I will certainly do that.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Tax on Professional Incomes.)
    Any person who claims and proves that any part of his income upon which, but for this Section, Income Tax would be charged at the rate of one shilling and twopence is derived from any trade, business, or profession carried on within the United Kingdom, shall be entitled to such relief from Income Tax as will reduce the amount payable on the income derived as aforesaid to the amount which would be payable if the tax were charged thereon at one shilling.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. PETO: I desire to move the Second Reading of this Clause in the fewest possible words, but at the same time I cannot allow the opportunity to go by without saying something, as the subject is one of very real importance. I am perfectly certain that the Clause will have the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he has already carried the principle which underlies it a very long way. I want to put the matter before the Committee on the broadest possible ground. I maintain that we want a broad distinction between earned and unearned incomes in this country. Undoubtedly the principle which ought to underlie that, and it is the principle in the Clause, is that people who are actually engaged in any trade, business, or profession carried on in the United Kingdom should be allowed to pay Income Tax at some lower rate. The rate I have

    2869
    suggested in this proposed Clause is one shilling. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) said the other day in this House. He said that as far as he was concerned he would be very glad to see all incomes of £5,000 a year reduced to £2,000 by taxation, because an income of £2,000 was enough for anyone.
    But I would remind the Committee that there is a very wide distinction between the different forms of income. There are thousands of cases in this country where people have paid Income Tax, as I have myself, not only on every single penny or pound of capital they possess in the world, but a great deal more than they now possess. If you have an Income Tax at 1s. 2d. in the pound and you charge that on the gradually accumulating capital of people who are managing businesses and enterprises in this country, then, I say, you are discouraging enterprise, energy and thrift. Moreover, you are definitely and distinctly encouraging people to go into business into any other country than this. Therefore I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the earliest opportunity of carrying his own principle a step further. He has reduced Income Tax on earned incomes below £3,000 and in doing that has carried what had already been done a step further. I ask him to have another stepping stone between the 9d. and the 1s. 2d. for the classes of people I have mentioned. If they were only required to pay 1s. it would mark the difference between one kind of income and another, and give encouragement to people to go into business and employ labour in this country. It is the desire of all of us to see increased employment available for our workers and I suggest that this will be a practical step in that direction. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Clause and help to bring about the encouragement of trade, which is now discouraged to a greater extent than perhaps many people imagine by the enormous incidence of direct taxation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can hardly think the hon. Gentleman is quite in earnest in moving this Clause, and I should be rather surprised if his eloquence had converted even himself. What does the Clause mean? The hon. Gentleman proposed that somebody who is receiving a comparatively small income, invested either in land or some form of gilt-edged security, should pay 1s. 2d., while the man who is making a huge in-
    2870
    come out of a trade or profession—a lawyer making £15,000 or £20,000 a year, or a business man making £40,000 or £50,000 out of trade—should be let off with paying 1s. The proposal is not one that I can entertain for a moment. It is indeed a perfectly preposterous one.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.)
    For the purpose of assessing Income Tax charged for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, and for any subsequent year, Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect as though the words "not exceeding in the case of land one-eighth part, and in the case of houses one-twelfth part of the duty on an amount equal to the annual value" were omitted from Sub-section (]) thereof.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Captain CLIVE: I move this new Clause in order to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to his intentions with regard to this matter. The effect of the Clause, of course, is to enable a landlord to recover Income Tax on the whole of the repairs he can show to have been executed, and not merely on the proportion that is allowed to him under the Finance Act. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that limited concession to landowners he thought it would cost the Exchequer half-a-million. That was to say landowners he expected would recover half-a-million which they had originally been charged on the repairs they had executed. As a matter of fact nothing of the sort has happened. The amount recovered in the first year was £9,000, and in the second year £43,000, making a total of £52,000 in two years, instead of the million pounds which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected in that period. There is one other point I should like to draw attention to. In answer to a question the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me that a further sum of £1,200,000 had been spent on repairs by these landowners beyond the 25 per cent. on which they recovered Income Tax. The Income Tax on that sum they would be able to recover if the Clause were accepted would be £70,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a pledge—I do not want to suggest that he has broken the pledge—but he made a

    2871
    statement when he made this concession under Section 69 of the Finance Act (1909–10), on the 20th September, 1909:—
    "If, therefore, it is found that the £500,000 is not altogether disposed of by this concession, the Government will probably be in a position before next year to increase the maximum."
    I propose to move this Clause in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he intends to do to carry out the spirit of that statement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there are three years for which landlords can put in their claim up to April next. We do not know what claims there will be. One thing is clear, the landlords are only beginning to realise what an important concession this is for them. The first year they did not realise it at all, and consequently they only claimed £9,000; the second year they claimed up to £43,000. Now they are beginning to realise it all round, and claims are pouring in not only in respect of this year, but in respect of the three years. It is impossible for me to make any further statement at the present time. We shall be in a position to know by the time for the next financial statement what the claims will be. In some cases the failure to claim is the fault of the agent, while in other cases it is the fault of the landlord; but now they are beginning to realise the substantial character of the concession.
    Captain CLIVE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much he expects it will cost the Exchequer? Of the million pounds there are some nine hundred and ninety thousand still available, that is a pretty wide margin.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But they can claim for the whole of the three years. They are sending in claims now; it would not be in respect of the current year only.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: What is the object of making this concession to the landlords?
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Licence Duty where Premises include Railway Refreshment Rooms.)
    Where at a railway station any premises structurally adapted to be used and bonâ
    2872
    fide used for the purpose of the reception of guests and travellers desirous to sleep on the premises include or are used in conjunction with refreshment rooms at that railway station, a retailer's on-licence may be granted at the option of the licence holder on payment of the duty which would be payable under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of such refreshment rooms if they were a separate set of premises, together with such sum as would be payable as duty under the same Act on the part of the premises not so used if such part were also a separate set of premises, but it shall be a condition of any such licence that there shall be no internal communication for the use of the public between such refreshment rooms and such other part of the premises.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. HILLS: I beg to move this Clause, which meets the case where you have a> railway hotel which is used in connection with refreshment rooms at a railway station. Since the passing of the Finance Act (1909–10) the licence holder is placed in a very special difficulty, for either he has to apply for one licence for both the hotel and refreshment rooms, in which case, if the sale of drink in the railway refreshment room increases the sale of drink over one-third of the total trade, he loses the exemption under Section 45 of the Finance Act, or he has to apply for two separate licences and is exposed to double cost. This is a very hard case and I am sure it was not intended under the Finance Act. I should say also that this Clause was on the Paper last year and was very favourably received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It could not be moved last year because it was in the wrong form, but now it is in the right form and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider it. The revenue will suffer no loss at all and the only effect of the Clause will be to remove an admitted grievance. I beg to move.
    Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The difficulty in this matter is that when once you begin to make these discriminations it is impossible to say where you will stop. The hon. Member says that in this particular case, according to his view, there will be no great difficulty. It is difficult to say to how many cases this will apply. Once you start such discrimination even in one or two cases, it is

    2873
    quite impossible to resist other Amendments that come very close indeed to this one, and it will be impossible to draw the line.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Collection of Income Tax.)
    (1) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall cause all Income Tax to be collected, so far as possible, before the expiration of the year for which the same is charged, but nothing contained in this Section shall affect the powers of the Commissioners to allow payment of any part of such tax to be deferred pending the decision of any appeal relative there to or any provision contained in any of the enactments relating to Income Tax concerning the dates upon which such tax is payable by any railway company or other corporation or person.

    (2) For the purposes of this Section "year" means the twelve month ending on the 5th day of April.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move this Clause.
    Last year considerable controversy arose with respect to certain instructions that were given by some officers of the Inland Revenue in connection with the payment of Income Tax, and I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take care that in future any such instructions will be rendered impossible. I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the instructions, but the fact remains that they were given, and that certain railway companies were invited not to pay their Income Tax within the financial year. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take steps to render such a thing impossible in the future, and with that object in view, I beg leave to move this Clause.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have given an undertaking that, in order to make it impossible for anything of the kind to happen in future, we will collect the Income Tax from railway companies three or four months before the usual time.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Death Duties.)
    (1) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall, on the application of any person liable to pay any Death Duties (including Estate Duty, Settlement Estate Duty, Succession Duty, and Legacy Duty), accept in satisfaction of one-tenth part or any less proportion of such duties, Two and a Half per Cent. Consolidated Stock to be taken as of its par value.

    (2) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall, as soon as may be, transfer all stock received by them under the provisions of this Section to the National Debt Commissioners, who shall forthwith cancel such stock.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. STEWART: As this is the only Clause which refers to the much-spoken-of question of Consols, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even at this late hour, will be willing to consider any scheme of a helpful character which may be laid before him. The concession asked for is only that people, on paying Death Duties, should be able to pay up to a one-tenth part in Consols at par. The mention of the word "par" may raise a smile among certain hon. Members opposite, but I would remind them that a series of articles appeared in the "Daily News" last January, in which a scheme was propounded to redeem the whole of our Consols at par in sixty-two years, by applying £19,000,000 annually for that purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have in his mind the objection that if you accept in payment Two and a Half per Cent. Consols at par you lose a certain amount of your collection in cash. There are, however, advantages which would compensate for that. The great virtue of the thing would be that you would make a market for Consols. Everyone would want to buy a few Consols then.
    At the present time there is only one buyer in the Con sol market, and that is the Government broker. A large number of small buyers would make a much better market than having one buyer. I can quite understand that there are orthodox objections to my proposal, but we and that the position with which we are confronted is an exceptional one, and I think, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see anything that would be beneficial in this scheme, he will not be

    2875
    put off it by being afraid to disturb the waters of departmental autocracy. I submit that as the Government are the greatest holders of Consols in the country, if the price were steadied they would be in that way the greatest gainers. It is admitted on all hands that the continual drop in Consols is a very serious matter, and I am credibly informed that even after the £5,000,000 were voted to the extinction of debt, that the price of Consols fell to a lower point than ever before, and that private bankers came in and bought Consols which they did not want, so as to stop the drifting away of our national security. If you provide, under this scheme, for the setting apart of a sum of, say, £10,000,000 annually for the redemption of our capital liabilities, the application of that sum, with the diminishing amount required for the payment of interest, would bring our debt down to within reasonable limits in the course of a few years, provided that peace is guaranteed in the meantime. I can well understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that he has no means of finding the money; but my answer to that is that last year he had a surplus of 6½ millions, and he has not taken one penny off the taxes.
    Therefore, I think we can fairly claim that if the taxation of the 1909 Budget is going to produce the fruition that its author expects of it, there will be a very handsome surplus which he can devote to this particular purpose. This new Clause would have this effect, that Consols would become acknowledged as a real debt, instead of a deposit which is never redeemed. We have the example of our neighbours in France redeeming a certain amount of their debt at par, and there is also the example of the Germans. My suggestion is merely a reproduction of the principle you have already in accepting payment in kind. Under your new Land Tax Clauses, I understand that you take houses and fields, if people want to pay you with that sort of security. A little introduction of the same principle, that is followed by our foreign neighbours in reducing a certain amount of their debt at par, would lift up the whole position, and this little leaven would tend to leaven the whole lump. I think we ought to adopt some such scheme for the reduction of our capital debt The Death Duties are deducted from the means of the individual, and represent a diminution of his capital, and I submit that they ought, in
    2876
    a small degree, to be devoted to the reduction of our capital debt. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept this Amendment as a means towards effecting a desirable end.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I confess that this seems to me to be rather a fantastic proposal. It is in effect a method of reducing the Death Duties. I have listened very carefully to the argument of the hon. Member to see if he had only read arguments in favour of the reduction of Death Duties, but I have listened in vain. I cannot possibly accept such a Clause.
    Mr. STEWART: At this late hour, I will not argue the case further.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a second time, put, and negatived."

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Easter Offerings to be Exempt from Income Tax.)
    From and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen, no sum of money collected by voluntary subscription and presented to any clergyman of the Church of England, or minister of any other denomination, shall be deemed to form part of the income of the recipient for the purposes of any enactments relating to Income Tax.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: There are very good reasons to justify me in moving this new Clause. It is customary for congregations to make certain money gifts to their ministers at Easter in the form of thank offerings. Up to 1904 no one thought of taxing these money gifts as part of the income of the clergyman or minister, but an attempt was then made to claim Income Tax on these free-will gifts. It went through the gamut of the Courts and sometimes the decision was in favour of the clergyman and sometimes it was in favour of the Inland Revenue. Finally in 1908 it was decided in favour of the Inland Revenue, and the law having thus been laid down, it became necessary that these men should pay Income Tax upon these gifts. I submit that that is unfair. These are free-will gifts on the part of the congregation, and are not part of the recipient's income in any sense. They vary in proportion to the popularity of the minister; and that being so it is surely unfair that they should be treated as a regular part of his income for the purpose of the Income Tax.
    Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. I beg to draw your attention, Mr. Maclean, to the fact that in the margin of this new Clause it says: "Easter offerings to be exempt from Income Tax." In the Clause itself there is no reference to Easter; it only refers to "money collected by voluntary subscription and presented to any clergyman of the Church of England or minister of any other denomination." I submit that the title has no connection whatever with the Clause.
    3.0 A.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really fail to see why ministers should have this part of income exempted from Income Tax. The Noble Lord says that it varies according to the popularity of the minister, but the income of any professional man varies according to his popularity, and why a minister should be placed in any different category I do not understand.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to extend the discussion, but the line the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken forces me to say one word. I think there is a real difference. This is in the nature of a free-will gift. It is not the contract between a parishioner and the minister or clergyman. It is not the promise of a professional fee or the clergyman's regular stipend, but it is much more in the nature of a free-will gift, and indeed it was very doubtful until the case was taken to the Courts for decision, whether it was taxable at all, and it required a decision of the Court of Appeal to settle that question.
    Mr. BOOTH: One or two clergymen who have spoken to me about this matter utterly repudiate every effort of this kind made on their behalf. [CRIES OF "Name."]
    I was discussing it only in the last few days, and they said they are quite prepared—I think I speak for the majority in this case—to pay all their debts, including their debt to the State.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do think the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not worthy of the case. It is really a bonâ fide claim which, in spite of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), the clergymen and ministers of other denominations have been making for some time past that they should not have these free-will offerings taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to ride off as if this were part of professional income. I venture to suggest that when he was in the active practice of the law he paid Income Tax on his professional fees, but if a collection were made among his clients as a free-will offering for himself I am perfectly certain he did not pay Income Tax upon it. I only hope my Noble Friend will go to a Division on this point.
    Mr. PETO: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a free-will gift to the clergy is charged as part of his income, whereas any free-will gift from one person to another is not so charged? I want to know why there is this invidious? distinction? If you give to your parish clergyman a five pound note or whatever it be out of gratitude or esteem, that is regarded as part of his income; but if you happen to give a sum to a friend who I happens to be in need, that is not part i of his income.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 153.

    Division No. 206.]

    AYES.

    [3.10 a.m.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Kerry, Earl of

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

    Kyffin-Taylor, G.

    Barnston, Harry

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Falls, Bertram Godfray

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Malcolm, Ian

    Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Boyton, James

    Greene, W. R.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Gretton, John

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Campion, W. R.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cassel, Felix

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chambers, James

    Hill, Sir Clement L, (Shrewsbury)

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

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hills, John Waller

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Stanier, Beville

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Younger, Sir George

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wheler, Granvllle C. H.

    Swift, Rigby

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl of

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Ronaldshay and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Acland, Francis Dyke

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

    O'Malley, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Shee, James John

    Black, Arthur W.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Boland, John Pius

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Higham, John Sharp

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hinds, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Brace, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pointer, Joseph

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hudson, Walter

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Primrose, Hon. Nell James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Clough, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, Michael

    Clynes, John R.

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, Wiliam (Clare, E.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Crooks, William

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Cullinan, John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J

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

    Devlin, Joseph

    MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Dillon, John

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Shortt, Edward

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    McGhee, Richard

    Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

    Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Tennant, Harold John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Field, William

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Mooney, John J.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Morison, Hector

    Wadsworth, John

    George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

    Muldoon, John

    Webb, H.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Munro, Robert

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

    Needham, Christopher T.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Gulland, John William

    Nolan, Joseph

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Hackett, John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Hancock, John George

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    O'Dowd, John

    Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    O'Grady, James

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Excise Duties not to be imposed on Sugar).
    Prior to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, no Excise Duty shall be charged or levied in respect of any sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom from beet or other produce grown in the United Kingdom, nor shall the Licence Duty payable by a manufacturer of sugar be increased beyond the present amount thereof.
    Mr. BIGLAND: This matter will come up on Wednesday, when I shall have an opportunity of dealing with it. I will therefore not move this Clause at present.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of British Wines for Blending Purposes.)
    Section 10 of The Finance Act, 1911, as far as it authorises regulations prohibiting or restricting the mixture for sale of any British wine with any foreign wine, or the sale or the exposure for sale of any such mixture, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may make regulations prohibiting the sale or exposure for sale of any such mixture, except under a description clearly indicating that it is a mixture or blend of British and foreign wines, and

    2881
    the above-mentioned section shall apply to a breach of any such regulation.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. HILLS: I feel bound to move this Clause, which embodies a very important question. In the Budget of last year a Clause was inserted enabling the revenue imposing conditions, or prohibiting the blending of British wines with foreign wines. The effect of the prohibition made by the special order of the Customs and Excise last March forbids the adding of more than 15 per cent. of foreign wines to home made wines. Now a blended British wine is very cheap and perfectly wholesome and is made under the best conditions. All the factories for the purpose are open to factory inspection, and are clean and well-managed. The effect of the prohibition in the Budget of last year will be to completely kill this trade, which is a perfectly fair trade. There is no deception in wines sold as a blend. If I had time I could make out a very strong case in view of the fact that under the prohibition the only persons who will benefit are the importers of cheap foreign wines. Indeed, after the passing of the Budget of last year, a large foreign firm advertised the fact that the blending of British wines with foreign wines was illegal. I do think that a very grave mistake has been made. I am certain it was not the intention of the Government and I appeal to them to put the matter right. You are doing this trade harm and are depriving people of a perfectly wholesome drink.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. It is very desirable that fraud should be prevented.
    Mr. HILLS: This is a perfectly unanswerable case, and I know there is no fraud.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am putting the case of the Customs and Excise, which is that this kind of thing ought not to be done except under the most careful regulations. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the trade is by no means united on this question. There ought to be some sort of protection against things being done which are a fraud on the public.
    Mr. HILLS: Certainly.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I carry the hon. Member with me. If the regulations
    2882
    are in any way too strict, it is purely a matter of regulation and not of altering the law. If the hon. Member can point out that the regulations are too strict, I shall be very happy to consider the matter.
    Mr. HILLS: I certainly accept that offer, and ask leave to withdraw the Clause.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Stamping of Policies of Sea Insurance which are Subject to a Contingent Increase of Premium.)
    Where the premium or consideration for a policy of sea insurance is expressed to be a sum not exceeding the rate of half-a-crown per cent. of the sum insured, and is subject to an increase (whether defined or not in the policy) in the event of the occurrence of a specified contingency, the premium or consideration shall, for the purpose of the Stamp Act, 1891, be treated as a premium or consideration not exceeding the rate of half-a-crown per cent. on the sum insured. But if, owing to the occurrence of the contingency, which is the occasion for an increase of the premium or consideration, the premium or consideration is increased so as to exceed the rate of half-a-crown per cent. of the sum insured, the policy or a new policy to be thereupon issued shall be stamped with such an additional sum as is required to represent the additional duty payable, and may be so stamped without penalty at any time not exceeding thirty days after the date on which the increased premium or consideration becomes ascertained.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move the Clause which stands in my name.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept the Clause.
    Proposed Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Charge of Super-tax in Case of Death.)
    In the case of the death of a person liable to Super-tax during any year for which Super-tax is charged, a part only of the year's Super-tax shall be payable proportionate to the part of the year which has elapsed before the date of the death.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move this Clause, which is accepted by the Government. I do not think it is necessary for me to explain it.
    Proposed Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Substituted Site Value, Extension of Benefit.)
    Sub-section (3) of Section two of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall apply to the case of any transfer or sale of the fee simple of the land or of any interest in the land which took place between the twenty-ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, and the date of the commencement of that Act, or took place after the commencement of that Act in pursuance of any contract made before the commencement of that Act, as it applies to the case of a transfer on sale which took place within twenty years before the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine.
    In the case where the original site value has been finally settled before the passing of this Act an application may be made, notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (3) of the said Section, under that Sub-section for the purpose of giving effect to this provision within three months after the passing of this Act, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall in such case alter the original site value as finally settled, in such manner (if any) as may be necessary to give effect to the Amendment made by this Section, and in cases where any amount has been paid on account of duty the Commissioners shall make such repayment as may be necessary to adjust the amount paid to any alteration of value made in pursuance of this provision.—[Mr. Cassel.]
    Proposed Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Income Tax.)
    Where Super-tax is charged in respect of the income of the wife there shall be allowed an abatement of such a sum as represents the amount which may be set aside to replace the original capital value of any leasehold having less than sixty years to run, calculated at the rate of three per cent. per annum with compound
    2884
    interest or the amount of premium paid on a leasehold redemption policy under similar conditions.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time."—[Mr. Boyton.]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept this proposal. The idea that there should be a special abatement in cases of this kind is not one that I could entertain.
    Proposed Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY (EXPENSES).
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, That, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make further and better provision with respect to Feebleminded and other Mentally Defective Persons, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) contribution towards the Expenses of Persons detained in, or removed from certified institutions for Defectives, and towards the Expenses which may have been incurred by any society in assisting or supervising Defectives;

  (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other Expenses incurred in the execution of such Act.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (EXTEN- SION) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  And, it being after Half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes before Four o'clock a.m., Tuesday, 6th August, 1912.