Commons Sitting of 7 April 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into 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 Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Mid Kent and East Kent District Water Bill.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill.
Great Northern Railway Bill.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill.
Ordered, that the Bills be committed.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not 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 Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Richmond (Surrey) Electricity Supply [Lords].
Ordered, that the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Annual Reports of Proceedings under the Diseases of Animals Acts, the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, etc., for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOSS OF THE SS. "TITANIC" (INQUIRY).
Copy presented of Return of the Expenses incurred by the Board of Trade and other Government Departments in connection with the Inquiry into the loss of the ss. "Titanic" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (ENGLAND).
Copy presented of Order, dated 31st March, 1913, made by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 78 of The National Insurance Act, 1911, entitled The National Health Insurance (County Borough of Dewsbury Insurance Committee) Order, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (STATISTICS).
Return ordered "for the year 1911–12 (or for the year 1910–11 where later figures are not available), relating to Education in England and Wales."—[Mr. King.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Congo.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, by recognising formally the sovereign rights of Belgium over the Congo, this country will retain or acquire any guarantees for the open door in trade, for the neutrality of the regions recognised, and for the good government and humane treatment of the native populations?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The recognition of the sovereign rights of Belgium over the Congo will snake no difference in any of the matters referred to by the hon. Member. Previous treaty rights will remain.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the Foreign Office any reason to suppose that the Belgian Government is less anxious for the good government and humane treatment of the native populations than we are?
  Mr. ACLAND: I hope not.

  China.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the United States Government is about to recognise the Republic of China?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the affirmative.

  Wheat Cultivation (Blenheim Park).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if

  787
  his attention has been drawn to the intention of the Duke of Marlborough to put 1,000 acres under the plough in Blenheim Park for the production of wheat; and if he can state the area of park land in England and Wales, and to what extent it could be put to a similar use?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; and the answer to both branches of the latter part is in the negative.

  Small Holdings (Herefordshire).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked how many applicants have applied for small holdings in Herefordshire; how many have been approved; and how many have had their applications satisfied?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been 495 applications for small holdings in Herefordshire; 271 have been approved; and 104 have been satisfied.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been able to agree to the application from the counties of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire to be treated as one area for the purposes of swine fever?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have reconsidered the position in the light of more detailed information recently furnished to me, and as each one of the three counties named wishes for the combination, the Board will not withhold their consent.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    AIRCRAFT (WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY).
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the naval aeroplane and airship wireless telegraph apparatus is of British invention and manufacture; and, if not, from what country it comes?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): Experiments are being carried out with wireless telegraphic apparatus of British and French designs.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: Are we to understand that the present wireless apparatus is of French invention and manufacture?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Partly French and partly British.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why unemployment benefit has not yet been paid to A. E. Simm, who registered at the Colchester Labour Exchange on the 20th February and did not obtain the promise of re-employment until the 31st of March, and whose re-employment is jeopardised by the retention of his card, and whether any explanation can be given of the delay; and (2) why the unemployed insurance card belonging to A. E. Simm, painter's labourer, lodged on 20th February, at the Colchester Labour Exchange, though applied for personally and in writing on and since 19th March, was not returned by the 30th March, on the ground that it had been sent to London; and whether compensation will be paid to Simm for loss of time in endeavouring to recover it, and for loss of wages if further loss of work is caused, as seems likely by his being unable to produce it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I understand that Mr. Simm lodged his claim to benefit on the 20th February, but that owing to the pressure of work at this time caused by the return to the Divisional Office of many thousands of claims the period of validity of which had expired, the claim was, by an error which I much regret, filed away. It has since been traced and Mr. Simm was duly paid last week. There does not appear to be any question of Mr. Simm's employment having been jeopardised by the non-return to him of his unemployment book. Mr. Simm was placed in employment through the Labour Exchange on the 19th March, and I understand that he is still in that employment. In view of the fact that his permanent unemployment book was not available at the local office a temporary book was sent to him.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the nature of the misconduct alleged against G. R. Abbot by reason of which unemployment benefit is refused by the Dundee Labour Exchange, and how soon after the 1st February, when unemployment benefit was applied for, was this decision given; and why it has taken twelve days to ascertain that the refusal of unemployed benefit is due to this cause?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The grounds upon which Mr. Abbot's claim was disallowed have already been communicated to him. He applied for unemployment benefit on 5th February, and not on the 1st, as stated by the hon. Member, and the decision notifying him of the fact that benefit had been disallowed was forwarded to the Labour Exchange on 26th February. I may add that the improved methods which have recently been adopted will, I hope, greatly reduce the possibility of the recurrence of the occasional delays which have inevitably occurred in the earlier stages of dealing with claims. As regards the delay in obtaining the information asked for by the hon. Member on 19th March, I would point out that it was necessary to make inquiries in Scotland to obtain the desired information, and that the Easter holidays intervened.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) whether the sanction of the Treasury has been asked by the Local Government Board to the advance of all, instead of three-fifths, of the cost of building a sanatorium at Nayland of about 100 beds; if so, with what result; whether similar applications will be entertained from county authorities, or whether the three-fifths' rule is intended to be absolute; also (2) whether any arrangement has been made with the East Anglian Sanatorium Company or its managing director for a Grant of a sum equal to the total cost of a sanatorium of about 100 beds at Nayland; and, if no arrangement has been made, is any negotiation pending with the object of increasing the Grant beyond the usual three-fifths of the total cost.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I may inform the hon. Member that an application has been received for a Grant for the erection of sanatorium accommodation at Nayland, and that the proposal is now under consideration.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Has any request been made to advance the full amount instead of the usual three-fifths, and is the usual three-fifths to be an absolute rule or not?
    Mr. BURNS: I believe that an application for some Grant above the three-fifths has been made, and is being considered by the Treasury and the Local Government Board.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is the three-fifths' rule an absolute rule, or may any one of these counties apply for the full amount?
    Mr. BURNS: I think that that had better be answered when the matter is fully considered.

    LOSS OF CONTRIBUTION CARDS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked what arrangements have been made for accepting proof of payment of contributions where a contribution card has been lost; and whether, in the case of William Bishop, No. 123814, boiler-maker, of Ipswich, a member of the Hearts of Oak Approved Society, whose first quarter's contribution card has been lost and who is refused benefit on the ground that the society is awaiting the decision of the National Health Insurance Commissioners an immediate decision can be come to by accepting the assurance of his employers, Messrs. Ransomes, Sims, and Jefferies, that the contribution card for the first quarter was fully paid, seeing that the Commissioners have had the matter before them for more than a month?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton on the 3rd of this month. Each case of a lost card must be considered on its merits, and there is no trace in the office of the Insurance Commission of the receipt of any communication with regard to the contributor mentioned in the question.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Assuming the facts of the question, will the hon. Gentleman accept the statement of both the man and his employers that he has paid the whole of the quarter's contribution?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Each case of the kind must be discussed on its merits.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the hon. Gentleman have some inquiries made as to whether the statement is well founded?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Every inquiry has been made, and no trace has been found of any communication on this case.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is this always decided by the Commissioners or is it a matter to be left to the approved societies to decide what they will do?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say in all cases.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether an insured person who becomes an employed contributor after the age of fifty will become entitled to disablement benefit if permanently disabled after he has paid 104 contributions for 104 weeks; and whether, if the rules of an approved society stipulate that 500 contributions must have been paid in such a case before the insured person is qualified for disablement benefit, the Commissioners will cause public notice to be given that such rules are ultra vires?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Commissioners are not aware of any case in which the rules of a society are in error on the point, and they would be glad if the hon. Member will let them know of any case which has come to his notice.

    CHEMISTS (CONVICTIONS).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the offence proved against a firm of chemists at Fenton, Staffordshire, who sold to the Stoke-on-Trent insurance committee a number of pills not in accordance with the prescription; whether insurance committees are empowered to strike off the list any chemists convicted of such offences; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will occasionally test the medicines and pills supplied and so ensure their proper composition and efficacy?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Commissioners have seen a report of the case referred to. If any representations are made to them that the inclusion or continuance on the panel of any chemist will be prejudicial to the efficiency of the service, they may after inquiry exclude or remove such chemist from the panel. With regard to the third part of the question it is the duty of the insurance committee to take such steps as may be necessary to secure a proper and sufficient supply of drugs and medicines for the insured persons in their area.
    Mr. KING: I understand from that answer that persons might be removed from the list on representations. From whom would these representations proceed—from the Insurance Commissioners or from insured persons?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: They may come from any respectable source

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the inquest on a woman held on the 29th March at Hull, when the doctor who was called in stated that the woman would not have died had she received attention earlier, and adding that, owing to the increase of work thrown on him and his partner in connection with the National Insurance Act they now found it impossible to undertake the amount of night work they had previously done, and had to refuse to deal with cases in which they had not a direct interest; if he will state the number of insured persons on the list of the doctor in question; the total number of panel doctors in Hull; and the number of insured persons there?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The Commissioners have made inquiries into the case referred to. They understand that the woman in question was not an insured person but a private patient. So far from stating that she would have lived if she had been attended earlier, the doctor states definitely that she would have died in any case. The number of insured persons on his list for whose treatment he has undertaken responsibility (only a very small proportion of whom, of course, are ill at any one time) is 2,238; the number of doctors on the panel for Hull is seventy-seven, and the number of insured persons approximately 89,000.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the doctors stated that if the woman had received earlier treatment she certainly would have lived; and may I ask whether he can inform the House how many persons unfortunately have died in consequence of the unsatisfactory arrangements that have been made in regard to the work of medical officers?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Obviously I cannot pretend to answer a question of that kind.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (NATIONAL CONFERENCE).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been called by the National Conference of Friendly Societies and by the Joint Committee of Approved Societies to the hardships suffered by aged and sick members of friendly societies, who are unable to obtain medical treatment except at a greatly increased cost in consequence of the concessions he has made to the medical profession; and whether he can

    793
    now see his way to make a Grant of 2s. 6d. a year for such members of sixty-five years of age and upwards, whether insured under the National Insurance Act, Part I., or not, upon the condition that the societies arrange a satisfactory system of medical treatment for such members?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had representations on this subject, but I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answers given by my right bon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to similar questions.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Act was passing through this House hon. Members were assured that insured persons would not be subject to injustice, and is he aware that members of approved societies are being penalised under present conditions?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point in the Bill to amend the Insurance Act which he is about to introduce?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): It is being considered.

    MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked by what right certain of the approved societies, acting as distributors of public funds under the National Insurance Act, withhold payment of insurance benefit on the ground that the medical certificates have been signed by the patient's own private medical adviser as distinguished from a panel doctor, seeing that the Insurance Commissioners have already pointed out that there is nothing either in the Act or in the Regulations under the Act to justify such a proceeding; whether the Government look upon the doctors who are not on the panel as hostile and will not accept their certificates; and whether the Government auditors would look to the secretary of an approved society to refund money paid on certificates of non-panel doctors as having been money unlawfully paid away?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 15th January and 6th February, and to the full statement made by him in Debate on 12th February. The acceptance or refusal of a certificate of any particular medical practitioner for the purpose of administering sickness
    794
    benefit is in the first instance for the approved society to decide, subject to a right of the insured person to appeal to the Insurance Commissioners under Section 67 of the Act. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

    DEDUCTIONS FROM WAGES.
    Mr. LYELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of a number of men employed by the Edinburgh and Leith Gas Commissioners in putting out the gas lights on common stairs every morning at the rate of 1s. 5d. the morning, or under 10s. a week; whether he is aware that these men were compulsorily insured from 15th July, 1912, until 8th February, 1913, when they were informed that they were outside the compulsory provisions of the National Insurance Act, but had the option of continuing as voluntary contributors; and whether, in view of the fact that these men had 33 weeks' deductions made from their wages under a misapprehension, he can see his way to refund to such of them as do not insure as voluntary contributors the deductions amounting to 11s. apiece.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The persons referred to in the question were properly insured as employed contributors until 30th December last, when a Special Order came into force by which their employment was excluded from the scope of the compulsory provisions of the National Insurance Act as a class of employment which is ordinarily adopted as subsidiary employment only, and not as a principal means of livelihood. In the circumstances the contributions paid by the men up to 30th December cannot be treated as having been paid under a misapprehension, and the Commissioners have no power to make any repayment from the National Health Insurance Fund in respect of such contributions. If, however, deductions have been made from the men's wages for any period subsequent to that date an application for a refund so far as those contributions are concerned would be entertained in the case of any men who may not elect to continue in insurance as voluntary contributors.
    Mr. LYELL: What is to become of the payments that were made before that date?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of that.

    Goods Traffic (New Regulations).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reply from the Irish Railway Clearing House with reference to the new regulations requiring goods sent by rail to be fully addressed; and if any modification of the regulations has been decided upon?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As was stated, in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Tyrone on Wednesday last, the Irish companies have temporarily adopted the regulations of the English companies.

    Conveyance of Potatoes (Caledonian Railway).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a satisfactory reply from the Caledonian Railway Company on the subject of the complaint made by the Perth and Forfar potato merchants; and, if not, whether he will communicate once more to the company the imperative necessity of taking immediate action to remedy the grievance?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have received a reply from the railway company, a copy of which I have forwarded to my hon. Friend. Briefly, the substance of the company's letter is to the effect that the shortage is due to exceptional circumstances, and that they have endeavoured to meet it by placing at the disposal of the potato merchants waggons obtained from the English railway companies.

    Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company (Subsidies).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the amount of subsidies agreed to be paid to the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company by the imperial Government for the conveyance of mails, under contracts entered into during the period when the Earl of Selborne was Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and First Lord of the Admiralty?
    Mr. KINGasked the Postmaster-General the amount paid for the conveyance of mails by the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company during the years when the Earl of Selborne was a Member of the Government?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The sums payable for the conveyance of oversea mails are stated in the contracts which are sub-
    796
    mitted for the approval of the House of Commons. I would refer my hon. Friend to House of Commons Papers, 259 of 1897 and 328 of 1904.
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: During the period in question was the subsidy for the China and Oriental mails raised by £10,000 per annum?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would like to have notice of that. I think that there was some increase and decreases also.
    Mr. KING: In view of the interest in this class of subject at present, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issue of a Return or Paper going back a great number of years and giving all these…
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice.

    Civil Service (Second Division).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked how many vacancies were advertised at the second division clerks' examinations held in 1911 and 1912, and how many clerks were appointed from each list?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of vacancies advertised was 100 in each year. The number of appointments from the 1911 list was 450, and the probable number from the 1912 list will be 550.

    Marconi Company (Post Office Contract).
    Mr. F. HALLasked on what date application was made to the Treasury for any necessary approval of the contract between the Post Office and the Marconi Company; and the date when such approval was given?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: On 7th March, 1912, the Post Office sought and obtained oral authority from the Treasury for accepting the company's tender. By a letter dated 11th March, they subsequently requested formal authority, and this was conveyed to them by a Treasury letter dated 20th March.
    Mr. F. HALL: Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer consulted personally with regard to the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will have to ask notice of that.

    Poor Law Institutions (Order).
    Mr. DAWESasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he will circulate copies of the draft Poor Law Institutions Order to Members of the House and undertake not to issue it until

    797
    an opportunity of discussing it in the House has been given; (2) whether the Departmental Committee by whom the draft proposed Poor Law Institutions Order was prepared included any represenative of either the medical or nursing professions; (3) whether he will state if the draft Poor Law Institutions Order, now under his consideration, admits of an inmate of a workhouse being employed in nursing sick inmates if approved by the medical officer and acting under the immediate supervision of a paid officer in the sick wards; whether such paid officer is to be a trained nurse; and whether such an employment is in direct opposition to a memorandum issued by the Local Government Board in the year 1892, in which the employment of paupers in such wards was strongly disapproved; (4) whether the draft proposed Poor Law Institutions Order has been confidentially supplied to certain persons and associations; and, if so, to whom; and whether he has refused to supply copies to other associations and to boards of guardians who have applied for them; and (5) whether he will state if any provision is made in the draft Poor Law Institutions Order, now under his consideration, for a training qualification for nurses in small workhouses where only one nurse is employed; whether it is provided that if in any workhouse there is no superintendent nurse the matron is to perform the duties of the position, and if any provision is made for such matron possessing an adequate training qualification; whether it is provided that the workhouse master is to have control of the sick wards and consequently over the superintendent nurse and her staff; and whether, if so, this would entitle the workhouse master to visit at any time any of the sick wards, whether male or female?
    Mr. BURNS: The Departmental Committee appointed to consider the Poor Law Orders with a view to their consolidation and amendment have not yet made their Report to me, and consequently I am not in a position to say what their proposals are. I understand that some time ago the Committee invited the observations of the Poor Law Unions Association and some other bodies upon certain of their proposals. As soon as I receive their Report, which I understand will include a draft Order, I will give consideration to the various matters referred to by my hon. Friend, including the suggestion that the draft Order shall be laid upon the Table.

    Pure Food Bill.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can name a day for the introduction of the Bill in preparation dealing with the question of the purity of food?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not yet able to name a date for the introduction of this Bill.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it will be before Whitsuntide?
    Mr. BURNS: When the Milk Bill is well on the way I am disposed to deal with bread.

    Hitchin (Insanitary Conditions).
    Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the insanitary conditions which prevail in certain of the older streets of Hitchin, in Hertfordshire; if so, whether he proposes to take any action in relation thereto?
    Mr. BURNS: I am aware that in some parts of the urban district of Hitchin the housing conditions are very unsatisfactory, and I have for some time past been in correspondence with the district council in relation to the Queen Street area of the district, with a view to action being taken by the council to remedy the conditions in that area by making an improvement scheme under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. I have recently addressed a further letter to the council on the subject.

    Import of Seeds (Ireland).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that the American Custom House officers take samples of seeds at the port of arrival, and if it is found that they do not come up to a certain standard of quality the names of the buyer and the seller are published; is he aware that Ireland is a dumping ground for spurious, diseased, and adulterated seeds; and whether he has any means at his disposal to protect farmers in this respect?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Department are aware of the procedure in the United States. The Department are empowered by the Weeds and Agricultural Seeds (Ireland) Act, 1909, to cause samples of agricultural seeds to be taken and tested for purity and germination and to publish

    799
    the results if deemed desirable. They are taking active measures to suppress the sale of seeds of the class described by the hon. Member.

    Old Age Pensions, Insurance, and Labour Exchanges (Cost).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount which the social legislation of the present Government, in the three items of old age pensions, insurance, and Labour Exchanges, is costing the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total amount which Parliament is invited to Vote in 1913–14 for old age pensions, insurance, and Labour Exchanges is £21,239,847.
    Sir J. D. REES: What is the cost to the country in the higher cost of living?

    Food Taxes.
    Mr. LEACHasked if, whilst the national expenditure has increased by about thirty-five millions sterling since the present Government came into office in 1906 and the National Debt has, during the same period, been reduced by seventy-eight millions sterling, no new tax has been put upon the food of the people?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No new tax has been imposed of the nature stated.

    Undeveloped Land Tax (Arrears).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been and is now collecting arrears of Undeveloped Land Duty from the present owners of properties, without having regard to the fact that such property has changed hands since the duty became due, but before any valuation enabled either vendor or purchaser to know that such duty was payable?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the affirmative, the practice being in accordance with the law which provides that Undeveloped Land Duty shall be recoverable from the owner of the land for the time being. I do not think a vendor or purchaser would have serious difficulty in making an approximate estimate of the amount of duty payable.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How can the vendor or purchaser know that the duty will not be payable? The purchaser could not know when he bought it.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not quite accept that view.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether Undeveloped Land Tax is being demanded upon working men's garden allotments in the Porchester freehold garden estate, on the ground that their gardens have not been turned into buildings; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will direct his subordinates to desist from such demands of working men who are using their allotments for the purposes for which they were intended?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Duty is primâ facie chargeable in respect of the land to which the hon. Member refers, but claims for exemption under the provisions of Section 18 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have been received from a number of owners, and these claims are now being investigated.

    Land Valuation.
    Mr. NEWMANasked why the provisional valuations in the case of every tenement covered by an Estate Duty case have not been hitherto issued in Ireland when such is done in England whenever a valuation for Estate Duty has been made under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and whether they will in future be issued in Ireland simultaneously with the valuation of the estate for duty?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The instructions in force in England with regard to the issue of provisional valuations when the valuation for Estate Duty purposes has been completed are also acted on in Ireland so far as land situated in cities and urban districts is concerned. As regards land situated in rural districts, the valuation for Estate Duty purposes generally falls to be made on a different basis from the valuations under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and is not as a rule dealt with by the Commissioner of Valuation.
    Mr. NEWMANasked what authority the Treasury had for having ordered the permanent valuers of the General Valuation Office, Ireland, who received warrants on appointment showing that their duties only embraced the carrying out of the provisions of the Irish Valuation Acts, to make valuations in Ireland under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that these valuers have been admitted by the Commissioner of Valuation to be the most competent valuers to make valuations under the Finance Act in Ireland;

    801
    and whether the Treasury will give directions that they shall not be required to make valuations under that Act unless they are fairly remunerated for doing so?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The warrant referred to was an authorisation to inspect lands for valuation purposes under the old Valuation Acts and quoted these Statutes. It does not limit the general duties of the valuation officers. The new Finance Act valuations being made by these are largely used for work under the old Valuation Acts. I cannot accept the suggestion in the last part of the question that the officers in question are insufficiently remunerated for the duties they are performing.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to introduce legislation to meet the Lumsden case and avoid its results?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave on the 26th March last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh.

    Income Tax (Members' Salaries).
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the Treasury received from the Comptroller Fund Auditor-General a communication calling in question the legality of the allowance of £100, without proof of expenditure, for assessing Income Tax on the salaries of Members of Parliament, and asking whether an opinion of the Law Officers had been obtained in support of the course taken; what was the date of such communication; whether any reply was sent, and, if so, when; and whether he will lay the correspondence on this subject upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: A communication to the effect stated, dated 13th November, 1912, was received. A reply was sent on the 15th February, 1913. The correspondence on the subject has been laid before the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
    Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not lay the correspondence on the Table, it being a matter affecting the private affairs of Members of this House; whether it is the habit of the Treasury to wait for more than two months before replying to letters; and whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers on the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the usual course has been taken. The correspond-
    802
    ence has to be laid in the first instance before a Committee of this House. It is not an outside Committee, it is a Committee appointed by this House to investigate matters of this kind, and the correspondence is always laid before the Public Accounts Committee in the first instance. It would be a departure from the usual practice to lay it on the Table first.
    Mr. CASSEL: Having regard to the fact that this affects the private affairs of Members, will the right hon. Gentleman make a departure from the practice; and will he state why such a long time was allowed to elapse, from the 13th November, 1912, to 15th February, 1913, before replying to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot answer the question without notice, but I should lave thought that the observations of the hon. Member show why the correspondence should first go before the Committee.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General calling in question the legailty of a uniform allowance of £100, without proof of actual expenditure, for the purpose of assessing Income Tax on the salaries of Members of Parliament; and whether, in view of the importance of insuring that allowances which are denied to the rest of His Majesty's subjects are not illegally made to Members of Parliament, he will afford the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Yes, Sir. This question is now engaging the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. No action will be taken until that Committee has reported.
    Mr. CASSEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to continue this practice, the propriety of which has been called in question by the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and which I think has been repeated since that attention was called to it, and will he also endeavour to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the opinion of the Law Officers on the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think we had better wait until the Public Accounts Committee has reported. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will not take any action meanwhile.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us we shall have an opportunity to discuss it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think so.

    Customs and Excise Department (Promotion).
    Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked whether, under the scheme of amalgation of the Customs and Excise Departments, officers who originally entered the outdoor Customs by open competition, and afterwards successfully competed for and entered the Excise, will for purposes of seniority and promotion be placed in a position inferior to that of their contemporaries in the Customs who tried but failed to pass into the Excise; whether, as a result of the amalgamation, certain of these Excise officers are now in receipt of smaller salaries than are their Customs colleagues referred to; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions that seniority in the case of all these officers shall be reckoned as from the date of their original entry into the Customs, and that a new scale of salaries shall be fixed in which regard shall be had to the time spent and the experience gained by them in that branch of the amalgamated service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It may be the case that some of the few officers who in the past voluntarily left the Customs service and entered at the bottom of the Excise service are slightly worse off now than their former contemporaries who remained in the Customs; but I am afraid that I cannot adopt the suggestion made in the last paragraph of the question.
    Mr. R. M'NEILL: Do not the facts apply to only a very few individuals who have a very serious grievance, and could not the right hon. Gentleman give them an answer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider the matter.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of that portion of the Keogh estate situated in the parish of Kiltrustan and comprising the townlands of Moyglass, Ballygarden, and Skelp, more than six years ago signed purchase agreements, and have ever since been paying 4 per cent. on the purchase money;
    804
    and whether he will use his influence to have the sales completed and those tenants relieved from paying that percentage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale direct by the owner to the tenants, and the Estates Commissioners have no power to deal with it except in its order of priority, and, having regard to the claims of other estates, they are not at present in a position to say when it will be reached.

    Ancient Order of Hibernians (Cork).
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether a resolution was recently passed by the Cork division of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and directed to be sent to the Press, the members of the city corporation, and other public bodies, condemning the action of the Lord Mayor in proposing a toast to His Majesty at the St. Patrick Day banquet and characterising the toast as the insulting toast of the King of England; and whether a copy of the resolution was sent him by order of the board of the ancient order; and, if so, what action the Chief Secretary intends to take in the matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the statement in the newspapers that such a resolution was passed has been emphatically contradicted. No copy was sent to me.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to see the actual letter written by the secretary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should be glad to see anything.

    Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether the Estates Commissioners are now able to give their decision with regard to the grants applied for by John Floyd, Patrick M'Laughlin, Patrick Gallen, Michael Carlin, and John Kelly, reinstated evicted tenants on the Delap estate, county Donegal; whether a settlement has been arrived at with regard to arrears of interest in the cases of Patrick M'Laughlin, John Floyd, and John Kelly; and is he aware that this matter has been pending for four years, that it is ten months since the inspector's report on these cases was received, and that the delay in these cases involves the withholding of grants from the tenants at the

    805
    period when the grants could be employed to the best advantage?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an inspector will visit the lands at an early date to ascertain what arrangements the purchasing tenants are making to pay the land purchase annuities which are in arrear, and in satisfactory cases will arrange for the expenditure of the grants proposed to be made. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 9th of October last.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners have demanded the return of their subscriptions to the Constabulary Force Fund; and if he will state what reply has been returned to this request?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Although some pensioners have asked that the fund should be wound up and their subscriptions returned to them, it is clear that the statutory claims of the widows and orphans of the subscribers must first be considered. As the hon. Baronet is aware, an actuarial inquiry is now being made into the state of the fund, and until it is complete no general reply can be sent to these demands.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked how many resignations from the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast have taken place during the last six months; and if he has any information with respect to the cause of these resignations?
    Mr. BIRRELL: During the six months ended 31st March, 1913, seventeen constables resigned from the Belfast force. The reasons assigned for these resignations were ten to emigrate, four to better their position, one to take up another situation, one on account of disciplinary report, and one for private reasons.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked whether, having regard to the general increase in the cost of living, he will recommend a full inquiry into the pay and conditions of service of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The last increase of pay was granted to the rank and file of the constabulary in 1908, and as I have already stated it is too soon to reopen the question.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider, having regard to the cost of living, that it is almost time they did get an increase?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Almost time, but not quite.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Quite time.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I think not.

    Education Inquiry (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary whether, seeing that the education inquiry will fail to achieve the main object for which it was appointed if it refuses to admit the Press to its sittings, he will represent to the Committee the desirability of allowing the Press to attend; and will he say who is responsible for the decision to exclude the Press.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing to add to my previous answers to questions on this subject. If the Committee at any time thought fit to alter their decision so far as to admit the Press to its sittings it would, I think, give general satisfaction.

    Royal Field Artillery (Special Reserve).
    Mr. ROBERT THOMPSONasked the Secretary of State for War why ammunition is not supplied to admit of officers of the Special Reserve Royal Field Artillery firing a series when attending practice camp; and whether he will consider the necessity of requiring that these officers should practise shooting?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This question is now under consideration.

    Royal Small Arms Factory.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the total number of employés at the Royal Small Arms Factory as on 31st March, 1913?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The numbers amounted to 1,879 inclusive of the Accounts Branch and the Building Works Department.

    Army Estimates.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Estimates submitted to the House will be radically reconstructed in view of the information made public since their submission regarding the fleet of airships maintained by

    807
    Germany, and the provision made in the extraordinary Estimates of that Empire for further augmenting and perfecting the aerial arm of the Service?
    Colonel SEELY: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question on Wednesday of last week.
    Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Members of this House who have most experience in the gas bag business?

    Rhum, Eigg, and Canna (Telegraph Facilities).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the proprietors of Rhum, Eigg, and Canna paid £150 a year for seven years by way of guarantee to the Post Office for telegraphic facilities; if he will explain why £152 13s. 4d. is now demanded from them after they have for seven years been free from any levy of this description; and why they should pay for a wire used by the inhabitants, by travellers, by yachtsmen, by salvage crews, and for general purposes by all sorts and conditions of men?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on the 2nd instant on this subject.
    Mr. J. D. REES: Is it not the fact that they have complied with all the requirements of the post office.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The question contains a number of argumentative points, but, as I stated in a previous answer, the matter is still being considered, and, in the meantime, no date has been fixed by the Department for the termination of the services.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the circumstances of other telegraphic offices?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am aware that if a concession is made in the case of this telegraph office that claims will be made from a number of places.

    Mail Delivery (North of Ireland).
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the fact that frequent delays take place in the delivery of letters in Armagh and other towns in the North of Ireland, and that the Post Office
    808
    officials profess inability to explain the cause; and if he will direct inquiry to be made whether the railway service is at fault and take steps to obviate delays which cause inconvenience to the public?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Application has recently been made for acceleration of the mails for Armagh and other places in the North of Ireland, and I am inquiring into the matter. During the month of March the arrival of mails from England viâ Holyhead and Kingstown has been somewhat later than usual, owing chiefly to bad weather, heavy Easter passenger traffic, and heavy transfers of American mails.

    Employment of Children Act (Scotland).
    Mr. HOAREasked the Secretary for Scotland the number of local authorities to which the Employment of Children Act, 1903, applies in Scotland, the number of these authorities who have put the Act into force, and the number of boys and girls, respectively, who have obtained licences for street trading?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The local authorities in Scotland which have power to make by-laws regulating street trading under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, are the town councils of burghs with a population above 7,000 and all county councils. So far by-laws have been made by six town councils out of fifty-four. None of the thirty-three county councils have put the Act into force. I have not information which would enable me to state the number of licences for street trading which have been issued. In addition, 31 school boards out of a total of 954 have made by-laws regulating ages and hours of employment.
    Mr. HOAREasked how many local authorities have put in force that part of the Scotch Education Act, 1908, which allows them to compel boys and girls to attend continuation schools; and how many boys and girls are at present attending them under compulsion?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: By-laws requiring the attendance of young persons at continuation classes have been confirmed in the case of eighteen school boards. The classes under these boards were attended, during session 1911–12, by 23,323 students, but I have no information as to how many of these were required to attend in terms of the by-laws.

    Rearming Ships.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the usual custom when ships are to be rearmed to pay them off before the manufacture of the new guns has been commenced; and, if not, why was this course adopted in the case of the eight scouts employed as flotilla cruisers paid off in August and September, 1912, and not yet rearmed?
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: There is no usual custom in the matter. Each case must be judged on its merits. Five of these ships have been wholly and three partially re-tubed as well as rearmed.

    Woolwich Arsenal Football Club.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board has been asked to consent to the leasing of a portion of the ground of the London College of Divinity, St. John's Hall, Highbury, to the Woolwich Arsenal Football Club; and, if so, whether the Board is satisfied that the condition of the trust deed would permit of a lease being granted for such a purpose?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The answer to each part of the question is in the affirmative.

    Crossens Station (Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway).
    Major WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communication with reference to the need of a footbridge to be erected by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company over their electric line at Crosscuts Station; and whether, in view of the danger and inconvenience to travellers caused by the lack of such facility, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The attention of the Board of Trade was called to this matter last, year, and they communicated with the railway company. The company then explained that they did not consider a footbridge necessary, inasmuch as there was a road bridge at the end of the station with steps giving access to and from each platform. The Board of Trade have no statutory power to require a railway company to provide a footbridge for the use of passengers at a station after it has been inspected and opened for traffic.

    Land Ownership.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government that there cannot be a severance between land ownership and direct political power?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would the right hon. gentleman read the speech of Lord Morley in another place last Session, in which he made this statement, and for that reason the question is asked if it had the concurrence of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member would let me have notice of that and send me a copy of the speech.

    Imperial Defence Committee.
    Mr. LONGasked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to enlarge the scope of the special inquiry by the Imperial Defence Committee, as suggested by the Committee of the National Defence Association in their letter to him of the 26th February last; and whether he is in a position to communicate the terms of reference to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is not desirable to widen the scope of this particular inquiry, the object of which is to discover whether any new factors have arisen which necessitate a reconsideration, and, if so, in what respect, of the conclusions on the question of oversea attack on the British Isles arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1908. The bearing of the results of the inquiry on the wider aspects of Imperial defence will be examined in due course.

    House of Lords.
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce a Bill to provide for an effective Second Chamber this year; and whether he can make any statement now upon the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    Labourers (Wages).
    Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether a statutory wage of £1 weekly to labourers is to form part of the Government's immediate legislative programme?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not prepared to anticipate the announcement which will be made in due time of the policy of the Government with regard to land reform and kindred subjects.

    Members of Government (Investments).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will give facilities for the introduction and passage of a Bill with the object of preventing Members of the Government in receipt of a salary speculating in stocks and shares, provided that they shall not be thereby precluded from investing in shares which they take up and pay for at the time of the investment and which are not purchased to be carried over in the expectation of a speculative profit?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand that the Prime Minister approves of Members of the Government gambling?

    Newspaper Lotteries.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to competitions and schemes in the nature of lotteries in certain periodicals published in England; whether he is aware that these competitions and schemes are regarded as legal in England but as illegal in Scotland; and whether he will take such steps as are necessary to effect uniformity of treatment in the two countries?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The matter is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to say anything further.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IRISH PARLIAMENT (SUMMARY).
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law by the 30th June, 1914, under the terms of the Parliament Act, it is the present intention of the Government to postpone by Order of the King in Council the summoning of the Irish Parliament until such date as will allow of any measure of registration or of electoral reform, including the abolition of the plural vote, that may be proposed during the present Session, being voted on by 103 representatives from Ireland and being subsequently passed into law under the terms of the Parliament Act by the House as at present constituted?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's question is based on hypothesis and deals with matters which, so far as I am aware, have not been considered by the Government.

    Coal Mines Act (Regulations).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked when the Regulations as to the hours of employment of winding enginemen, framed under Section 57 (3) of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will come into operation as finally adjusted?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have, in accordance with the recommendation of the Referee, made an Order fixing the 30th June next as the date after which, except as provided by the Regulations, no winding engineman may be employed more than eight hours a day. The Regulations will come into force at the same time.

    Sunday Trading.
    Major WHITEasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the state of the law with regard to Sunday trading, he will reconsider the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Sunday Trading appointed in 1906, or will recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to deal with the doubts and difficulties in its administration still existing?
    Mr. McKENNA: The Government made an attempt in 1911 to deal with the question of Sunday closing on the lines recommended by the Joint Select Committee of 1906, but the proposals encountered considerable opposition, and no solution was found which was generally acceptable. I am aware of the strong feeling in favour of some measure of Sunday closing among a large section of the traders of the country, and I should be glad if a satisfactory solution could be found, but I am afraid there is no prospect of the Government being able to take the matter up again at present, and I am not satisfied that the appointment of another Select Committee now would be likely to advance the question.

    Women Suffrage Prisoners.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the total number of persons, distinguishing between men and women, who have been imprisoned since 1st January, 1910, for offences connected with the movement for the enfranchisement of women; what number of these have refused to take food and

    813
    have been forcibly fed; and the number who have had to be released for reasons of health connected with forcible feeding?
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of persons imprisoned for offences in connection with the suffragist agitation since 1st January, 1910, is as follows:—

    Females.

    Males.

    1910

    113

    3

    1911

    182

    6

    1912

    238

    2

    1913

    66

    4

    These figures relate to persons received into prison on conviction, and do not include cases received on remand or while awaiting trial. As I have already stated, on the 25th March, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division, out of the 240 imprisoned in 1912, fifty-seven were forcibly fed, and of these twenty-three were released for reasons of health. Since the beginning of this year, out of the seventy imprisoned ten have been forcibly fed and three of these have been released for reasons of health. Similar information with regard to the years 1910 and 1911 could not be furnished without a great expenditure of labour and time, and in some cases the particulars might not now be available.

    Factories Acts (Hours of Labour).
    Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTHasked the Home Secretary whether, under the terms of the Factories Acts, the hours of work in factories must be regulated as from the beginning of one complete hour to the end of another, half-hourly periods not being permitted; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation with a view to rendering possible more elastic and more convenient arrangements?
    Mr. McKENNA: Under the Factory Act, the period of employment for women and young persons must begin at six and end at six, or begin at seven and end at seven, or (in the case of non-textile factories and workshops) begin at eight and end at eight. It is not permissible to make the period run from, say, 6.30 to 6.30; but there is nothing to prevent the employer making actual work commence, say, half an hour later or end half an hour earlier than the statutory limits; it is not unusual to do this and to allow the first half hour or last half hour, as the case may be, as a meal time. The present system has been in force since 1878.

    Glamorgan County Council (First-Aid Certificates).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received from the Education Department of the Glamorgan County Council a memorandum asking for the recognition of the Glamorgan Education Committee's certificates in first aid for the formation of rescue brigades in mines, and qualification for first and second class certificates of competency; whether he is aware that the Board of Trade and the War Office accept the committee's certificates; and whether the Home Office is now prepared to accord a similar recognition?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have received an application from the Glamorgan County Council for the recognition of their first-aid certificate for the purposes of the Coal Mines Act. The whole question of the recognition of first-aid certificates for the purposes of that Act is under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this matter has been under consideration, and whether, in view of the fact that the examination for mines' certificates takes place in May of this year, the Report of those who are considering the matter can be now produced?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Member a more definite answer. The recognition of the Glamorganshire County Council certificate has been vigorously opposed in various quarters.

    Trawling Inquiry (Report).
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can furnish any further information with regard to the Inter-Departmental Commission to investigate the trawling for herrings and other fishery questions; and whether he can state how many days the Commission has sat, and when the Report will be issued?
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): The Inter-Departmental Committee on Fisheries held its first meeting on 6th July, 1912; and the last meeting at which evidence was heard on 24th February of this year. The Members of the Committee have, however, been, obliged to give very con-

    815
    siderable time, in addition to the actual meetings of the Committee, to considering various Reports and Memoranda sent in from both England and Scotland. An agreement between the drifting and trawling interests to request a postponement of decision by the Committee until after this fishing season, appears to be imminent. In view of such probable agreement, and of the necessity of obtaining certain practical information desired by the Committee and the contending parties, and only obtainable by research on the fishing grounds, it is probable that no Report will be issued until the autumn.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Now that that agreement has been arrived at, will the Committee direct its attention to the object for which it was set up?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: When we have considered the evidence which we have already got we shall proceed to the second part of the inquiry, which is the question of limiting, or perhaps extending, the international area.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will you remember that that is the chief object of the Committee?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I cannot agree with that.
    Mr. MUNRO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time experiments are being made on the subject of trawling for herrings?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. Those experiments and researches have so far been inconclusive, and it is desired on both sides that they should be continued and extended during the present fishing season.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the question of limiting the area was being considered? Am I not right in saying that the only question is that of extending the area.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It may be that the question of limitation will come up. I should not exclude it.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Does that mean that we shall have no information as to extension or limitation before the autumn?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The question to which I have given an answer has reference to the difficulties with regard to
    816
    trawling for herrings. It is upon that and that only that a postponement of decision will probably be requested.

    Northern Nigeria (Prostration).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether prostration is insisted upon by the British Government officials in Northern Nigeria; and, if so, whether these prostrations are demanded from natives and non-natives alike, not only for the officials but for their wives?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The answer is in the negative.

    Montenegro (Great Powers).
    Mr. BECKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give to the House as to the coercion of Montenegro by the Great Powers; and whether, before Great Britain is committed to taking part in a policy by which Montenegro is forcibly deprived of territory which she has conquered or may conquer, the Government will give Parliament an opportunity of expressing its views?
    Mr. ALDENasked whether, in the event of the naval demonstration of the Great Powers proving ineffective, it is proposed to sanction any isolated action by Austria-Hungary on land to reinforce the demand for a cessation of the bombardment of Scutari?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information with regard to Montenegro?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): Two of His Majesty's ships, the battleship "King Edward VII." and the cruiser "Dartmouth," have proceeded to the coast of Montenegro to take part in an international naval demonstration. Austrian, French, German, and Italian warships are also there for the same purpose. The British senior naval officer has been instructed to join the senior officers of the international squadron in consultation as to any means which may be practicable to exert pressure on the Montenegrin Government to defer to the decision of the Powers. The landing of naval brigades and field guns or actual bombardment will not be undertaken without further instructions. The attitude of the

    817
    Russian Government is explained in the following communique:—
    "In view of the fact that the Conference of Ambassadors in London has pronounced a naval demonstration in Montenegrin waters indispensable, Russia, although not herself taking part in the above-mentioned demonstration, has expressed the opinion that the demonstration ought to have an international character, and that French and British ships ought to take part in it."
    The House will perhaps allow me to offer some explanation of the object of this naval demonstration, and of how and why His Majesty's Government have become a party to it. We are party to it because we are a party with the other Great Powers to an agreement which the naval demonstration is intended to uphold. This agreement is that there should be an autonomous Albania. We willingly became a party to this, for the Albanians are separate in race, in language, and to a great extent in religion. The war which is proceeding against them has long ceased to have any bearing on the war between Turkey and the Allies, or to be a war of liberation. The operations of Montenegro against Scutari are part of a war of conquest, and there is no reason why the same sympathy that was felt for Montenegro or other countries contending for liberty and national existence should not be extended to the Albanian population of Scutari and its district, who are mainly Catholics and Moslem, and who are contending for their lands, their religion, their language, and their lives. For these reasons His Majesty's Government have no hesitation in being parties to the agreement of the Powers about Albania. The agreement between the Powers respecting the frontiers of Albania was reached after a long and laborious diplomatic effort. It was decided that the littoral and Scutari should be Albanian, while Ipek, Prizrend, Dibra, and (after much negotiation) Djakova should be excluded from Albania. This arrangement leaves a large tract of territory to be divided between Servia and Montenegro as the fruits of victory. The making of the agreement was essential for the peace of Europe, and, in my opinion, it was accomplished only just in time to preserve that peace between Great Powers. That the agreement, if disputed, should be upheld by international action remains essential for the continuance of that peace. His Majesty's Government have no direct interest in the details of the agreement, and we should not, in all probability, object to any agreement that commanded the consent of the Powers more directly
    818
    interested than we are. But, because we believe that the agreement is, in its main lines, in accord with humanity, liberty, and justice, and because we know that the peace of Europe depends upon the maintenance of concord between the Powers most directly interested in this region, we have thought it right, and by becoming a party to the agreement we have undertaken the honourable obligation to take part in the international action now proceeding to uphold it and make it respected.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he can reconcile the attitude of His Majesty's Government with their declaration of neutrality?
    Sir E. GREY: As I have already said, what is going on in Albania is not now a war of liberation, but a war of conquest. It has long ceased to have any bearing upon the war between Turkey and the Allies. The Great Powers, having all become parties to an agreement about the frontiers of Albania, we, as one of the parties—and willingly—for reasons I have given, are bound to take part in international action.
    Mr. D. MASON: I do not propose to enter into a discussion at this time, but I should like to say that at the first opportunity we shall raise this question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can ask any questions.
    Mr. BECK: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me whether this House will have any opportunity of discussing this question at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it a matter of very grave doubt whether a discussion of this sort at this particular moment would be in the public interest. If there is a general desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are content"]—and if that desire is concurred in by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—I shall be quite prepared to put down the Foreign Office Vote for Thursday. But I would say to my hon. Friends behind me, in all seriousness and with a full sense of responsibility, that while we are far from desiring in any way to burke or to postpone discussion on this subject, I do not think, in view of the enormous and very delicate interests involved, that any great advantage will arise from discussion.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Apart from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I should

    819
    myself have considered it in the last degree undesirable to have a discussion at this moment.
    Mr. BECK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very strong opinion in this country against the action in this matter of His Majesty's Government, and that, though this House may not be in a position to discuss it, it is being discussed in every newspaper in the country and in every other Parliament in Europe?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the Foreign Office takes any further action in regard to the blockade of Montenegro will this House have an opportunity to discuss it?
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can an undertaking not be given that before troops or marines are landed this House will have an opportunity of discussing a matter which may easily develop into a European War?
    Mr. D. MASON: In view of the absurdity of this position, may I now move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: What are the terms of the hon. Member's Motion?
    Mr. D. MASON: To discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of His Majesty's Government in taking part in a naval demonstration against a friendly Power.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of His Majesty's Government in taking part in a naval demonstration against Montenegro.
    The pleasure of the House not having teen signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the Business of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what Supply will be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The Education Vote.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    SUNDAY CLOSING (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To provide for the closing of public-houses on Sunday in Ireland, including Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, and Belfast." Presented by Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH; supported by Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Horner, and Mr. MacCaw; to be read a second time upon Monday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

  PROVISIONAL COLLECTION OF TAXES.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move:—
  "That—

  (a) a Resolution passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of this House for the imposition of any new tax, or for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any tax which is of a temporary character, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, shall have statutory effect for a limited period; and

  (b) where a Resolution so provides for the renewal of a temporary tax, all statutory provisions which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution; and

  (c) payments or deductions on account of a temporary tax made within two months after the date of the expiration of the tax shall, subject to conditions as to repayment or recoupment in certain events, be deemed to be legal payments and deductions."

  836

  In moving this Resolution, I would like to make a few observations, although the matter has been discussed, I think, on two or three separate occasions recently. What we are proposing is not an innovation upon, at least, the practice of the Treasury in respect of new taxes. On the contrary, it is a means of regularising and legalising the usage and custom which has been followed by every Government for at least sixty years—so far as custom is concerned for a period that goes still further back. It is a custom and a practice that has been in accordance with public interest, and with the convenience of the taxpayer. Since 1842 it has been followed in respect to the Income Tax. It is true that for some years when the Income Tax was triennial it was not necessary that this practice should come into operation for two out of the three years that this Resolution was carried. But since 1861, it has been the unbroken practice of the Exchequer, and of this House, to pass this Resolution, and collect the Income Tax before the Finance Act embodying the Resolution was carried into law. This custom has been recognised in Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice." It says:—
  "Anticipatory authority is imparted by usage to the Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means which impose or alter taxation under orders from the Treasury. Although statutory legal effect may not for some time be given to those Resolutions, the dates of the increased duties are calculated from the date prescribed by the Resolution as soon as agreed by the Committee and upon the date following that agreed upon by the Committee if no date is specified in the Resolution. These proceedings are for the time being without legal authority, but are subsequently legalised by the Statute under which these altered duties are levied."
  And Lord Halsbury, in his great work upon the Laws of England, says:—
  "The financial proposals of the Government are Carried in the form of Resolutions moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other Minister in Committee of Ways and Means, and these Resolutions require to be confirmed by Act of Parliament and the assent of the Crown before they have the force of law, and in order to safeguard the revenue and to prevent forestalments any Resolutions for tie imposition of new taxes, the altering or renewal or the increase of duties, is acted upon as soon as agreed upon in Committee of Ways and Means."
  These two authorities state what is undoubtedly the practice in this country for several generations, and all we propose to do is to give statutory recognition to that practice, which has been unbroken for over sixty years. We are presenting no innovation; there is no revolution involved; it is simply a statutory recognition of the existing position, usage and custom. I could quote two or three other passages, but I need not do so, but there is a statement

  837
  in the "Times" of 1909 to the same effect. I should like to refer to one Act of Parliament passed in 1876 by a Conservative Government which gives something that looks like statutory recognition to this practice. The Customs Consolidation Act of 1876 provides that
  "in all cases where any new duties of Customs or other duties, rates, or charges under the management, collection, or control of the Commissioners of Customs are, or may be, imposed by any Act of Parliament or by any Resolution of the House of Commons in view of any duties payable at the time of the passing of such Resolutions, such form of duties are continued payable except in cases where such Act or Resolution imposing such duties shall otherwise provide."
  When that Act was quoted in the action of Bowles v. the Bank of England, Mr. Justice Parker said that seemed to be a recognition that Customs Duties might be imposed by Resolution of the House of Commons. It did give some sort of indication that in his judgment this case did not prejudge the question whether Customs can be levied by Resolution of the House of Commons. There is similar recognition in the Isle of Man Act of 1887. As a matter of fact this custom and practice was never challenged in the Courts of Law until last year in this country. It was challenged twice, I think, in Australia, and on both occasions the Supreme Courts of Victoria and New South Wales acted upon the assumption that a Resolution of their own House of Representatives was adequate authority for the Treasury in these circumstances.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Was that not a Resolution with regard to Customs, not Income Tax?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure about that. I think it was Customs, but the practice has been based upon public interest and the defence of the subject. As far as public interest is concerned, it is perfectly obvious it is to the interest of the public that there should be power of this kind until Parliament has had time to thoroughly consider these proposals and to embody them in the Finance Act. Otherwise the Treasury might lose a good deal of revenue owing to forestalments. In the case of Customs you might lose the whole of your revenue for a year owing to forestalments. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, proposed to put on either new duties or additional
  838
  duties upon any commodity, if he had to wait for statutory effect to be given to the Resolutions by Act of Parliament he might lose the whole of the revenue which would be forestalled for a year. That would be a very serious matter, especially in the case of a War Tax, where the money is required for that particular year. If an increase were imposed for permanent purposes you might lose the money for the first year, but you would recover it in the second, third, and fourth year, and so on; but if it was a new duty or a variation of old duties which were imposed for specific purposes in the course of the particular year, it might well be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose the whole of the revenue he needed for some great national purpose. With regard to the Income Tax—and I observe the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to draw some distinction between Income Tax and Customs—the same thing would apply if you increase the Income Tax by a considerable sum as was done in 1901 and 1902, when there was an increase of Income Tax upon two successive years. Supposing in that case the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to wait until the Budget became an Act of Parliament, and until the Assent of the Crown was given in those years somewhere about the end of July, he might lose very considerable revenue or at least something substantial unless he were in a position to act upon the Resolution of the House of Commons from the very date that these taxes were imposed. It is quite true he might be able to provide against it, but it would be a matter of great inconvenience and some loss. It would certainly mean loss of income or, at any rate, of a certain amount of income. And as far as the public are concerned there is no doubt it would be a great inconvenience not only to bankers, but to agents and brokers unless they were able to deduct at the source. Supposing they were bound to keep a record of every transaction it would undoubtedly mean great inconvenience to them.
  I do not think it would be contended by anyone that so far as bankers are concerned it would be a considerable convenience to them to deduct from dividends when they become payable. So this practice which has existed has been found to be for the convenience of the subject and in the interests of the public, and that is the reason why it has gone on for at least sixty years without being challenged in the Law Courts. I noticed the other day,

  839
  when we were discussing this matter, that it was said, I think by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester, that there has been a change in the practice of the Government of the day. Very well, that only comes to the question of safeguards and limits. I agree that that may be a very good argument for putting a limit upon the life of a Resolution, but the question of limiting is a question for the Committee. You cannot say of a Resolution of the House of Commons that it is to go on for all time; it must have statutory effect, and it must be embodied in an Act of Parliament. It is essential there should be a limit to the Resolution, and the question of the reasonableness of the limit should be properly, I think, discussed in Committee. We propose in the Resolution we shall submit to the House, the 31st August. I think that is a reasonable limit. In 1907 the limit was six months from the date of the Resolution. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) has suggested three months, but I do not think that is adequate for the purpose of carrying out a large measure of finance. It might be adequate where there are no new taxes imposed, but I can quite understand that there might be proposals in a Budget brought forward by hon. Members on the other side of the House which might be so controversial that you could not carry it in three months. In that case the Government would find themselves in difficulties at the end of three months with regard to the Income Tax, the Tea Duty, and any variations of the taxes, because they would be bound to lose, and it would create a good deal of confusion and trouble. Therefore I do not think three months is anything like adequate for the purpose. At the same time I agree that there ought to be a very strict limit, and I should certainly agree on the Committee stage to the insertion of a very strict limitation. I find that during the last forty or fifty years we have had twelve Budgets, one of them introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I think it was introduced on the 1st August.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That was owing to the undue prolongation of the stages of Bills in the House of Lords, due to the sudden interest in finance and
  840
  the unexpected loquacity of one of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the unexpected loquacity of somebody is an element which every Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have in view. I might point out that in the case of the War Budgets of Lord St. Aldwyn, three months would not have covered that case. Both of his Budgets came outside the limit of three months, and there would have been a lapse of at least a fortnight or three weeks before the Act came into operation. If it is convenient I will now come to the question of the Amendments, and I will deal with them.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think that would be convenient.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government are anxious not to extend the practice in any way. They do not wish to go beyond what is undoubtedly the practice, and I will indicate what I mean. Take the Amendment put down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras. He wishes to confine this power to "Customs, or Excise, or Income Tax." I think what the hon. and learned Member means is that he does not want any other principle established.
  Mr. CASSEL: The single tax, for instance.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree. That would be an extension of the practice, and therefore the hon. and learned Member's Amendment is a perfectly legitimate one. I think, however, it would be better if this Amendment came after the Committee stage of the Bill. On this point, however, I wish to make a general observation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are just as interested in this matter as we are. If Amendments are moved on purely enabling Resolutions, it means that you have two money stages for every Money Bill, and that is a very serious departure from precedent. I would suggest, not merely in the interests of the Government, but in the interests of the Opposition as well, that it is undesirable that a mere enabling Resolution, drafted in the broadest terms to give full play in Committee of moving Amendments, should be limited at this stage by all sorts of Amendments. I agree that hon. Members are entitled to ask from the Government what Amendments we are prepared to accept at this stage. That I shall indicate, but I very respectfully suggest that it is

  841
  not desirable at this stage to set up what is a very serious new precedent, and one which the Opposition certainly may suffer more from than even we do, considering the sort of financial prospect they have got in their minds, the prospect, not merely of discussing a Resolution, but of actually moving Amendments and limitations to it. I think that is a very serious departure, and before we proceed to the Amendment I should like some indication from those responsible for the Opposition as to whether they think this is a desirable practice.
  Having made those general observations I will indicate what the Amendments are. The first Amendment I will deal with is that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West St. Pancras which proposes to insert the words: "Of Customs, or Excise, or Income Tax." That Amendment I propose to accept, although I should very much prefer to accept it on the Committee Stage or embody it in the Bill to having it inserted here, because it is a serious departure from precedent. There is another Amendment standing in the name of the same hon. and learned Member to insert the words "Subject to conditions as to repayment or recoupment in certain events." I have no objection to the insertion of those words except the general one which I have already raised. Then the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras has three Amendments down to omit the word "limited." In the Bill itself I propose an actual limitation, but what I suggest is that this question should not be discussed twice over. With regard to the actual form of the limitation proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I rather object to it because I feel it will be impossible to insert them in this Resolution. The terms of his proposal are
  "not exceeding three months, provided always that an Act of Parliament imposing, varying, or renewing such tax pursuant to such Resolution shall have received the Royal Assent within such period."
  That is clearly a matter which ought to be dealt with in the Bill. I may say that the principle of it we accept and we shall certainly embody the spirit of it in the Bill. I should, however, object to the words being inserted in that form. I do not object to the initial or the fixed period, but I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press the two lines of the proviso, and if the Government promise to
  842
  embody the principle of this Amendment, the hon. and learned Member will have an opportunity of criticising our proposals in Committee. The same remarks apply to the Amendments of the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), which provides a limitation of three months provided that a second Resolution with reference to the same tax shall not be moved in the same Session. That we also accept in principle, but I think it would be fatal to insert the words in that form, because we often have to get a second Resolution, not because it is a new tax, but because occasionally certain alterations are necessary, and you have to get a second Resolution on practically the same tax. I can see what the hon. Gentleman has got in his mind, and I am willing to meet him on that point. What he has in mind would be an infringement of the spirit of the Act, and I agree that there should be words to prevent that, but I think he must recognise that the words he has proposed would be very dangerous. He says that a second Resolution with reference to the same tax shall not be moved in the same Session. I think that is much too hard a line to draw, because some alteration may be necessary in consequence of criticism in debate. The other limitation proposed is in regard to payments or deductions made within two months. According to our proposals we shall be able to collect a temporary tax for about two months before the introduction of the Budget. I can quite see the objection which is raised to our proposal, because it is thought that it puts a premium on the late introduction of the Budget. I am prepared to meet the hon. Member there, and I would suggest that three weeks would not be sufficient. The period depends on Easter and the arrangements made by the House for Easter. I have seen a fortnight's holidays at Easter, and it might be very inconvenient in this case if you were forced to introduce your Budget within three weeks, especially under certain conditions which might arise at Easter. I would suggest as a compromise that two months should be cut down to one month, and that would give us an extra week.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that his Resolution might run over beyond the end of the Financial Resolution, and that the Resolution might be moved in March in the next financial year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. and learned Member is aiming at something quite different. He is aiming at the Government bringing in their Budget rather late in the year, and what he wants to do is to force the Government to introduce the Budget as soon as possible.
  Mr. CASSEL: I am going to say with regard to that particular paragraph that it is altogether unnecessary, but if you have it the difficulty might be got over in quite a different way. If, however, you try to get over it in this way you ought at all events not to impose taxation without even the sanction of a Resolution for more than three weeks.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the possibility of moving a single taxing Resolution, say, at the beginning of March, which would have force for a number of months before the Budget is introduced?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I think I have made it clear that I propose to accept an Amendment which would prevent a Resolution having any effect at all until it is embodied in an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: That is not my point.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain it afterwards. Another Amendment has caused a great deal of difficulty and complexity. The hon and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel) had a Motion down last week to define a temporary tax, and certain hon. Friends of mine feel this ought not to apply to new taxes. I rather regret the view they take because it would undoubtedly be a great convenience in many cases if Resolutions had at any rate temporarily the statutory effect so far as new taxes are concerned, but they think that would carry it far beyond any precedent. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman also takes that view.
  Mr. CASSEL: I withdrew my Motion, but I am going to make an alternative suggestion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I quite agree that it is a very serious proposal. The Government want to limit the proposals to that which has undoubtedly been sanctioned by precedent in the past, and, if it can be pointed out that we are in any direction going beyond that, I shall be pleased to accept any Amendment that is
  844
  moved. Therefore, if my hon. Friends insist on leaving out those words I shall not be in a position to resist their Amendment. I propose also to accept the principle of an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland). He suggests that it should only operate in cases where there is a special Resolution passed by the House of Commons: "That it is expedient," etc., I do not know whether he means the House of Commons or the Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The House of Commons.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That would be absolutely fatal; that would be quite impossible. You would certainly have at least a couple of days in which to prepare for a proposed increased duty on any commodity. The real advantage of the practice is that when the Budget is introduced the new taxes are put on after four o'clock, and nothing can be done until the morning, by which time the Resolution has been carried. By the general consent of the House, if there is a new Customs Duty, or an increase of an old Customs Duty, it always goes through on the understanding that there is a debate later on, in order that the Resolutions should have effect on the following morning. If you postpone the effect, not merely until a Resolution is carried in Committee of Ways and Means, but until it has also obtained the sanction of the House, you lose duty on an enormous quantity of excisable commodity.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The point to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded has not escaped notice in the drafting of the Amendment, and it can be perfectly well dealt with within the scope of the Amendment.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not object to making these Resolutions enforceable only during this limited period, and so I accept in principle the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid I could not see my way to go beyond that. The same thing applies to an Amendment of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Hicks Beach). He has an Amendment in paragraph (b), after the word "period," to insert the words "unless such Resolution otherwise declares," and that I accept in principle. I would rather it was embodied in the Bill because I think that is where it should probably come. I think that

  845
  covers all the points, but I shall be very glad to answer any questions with regard to any I may have overlooked.
  Mr. POLLOCK: There are two small Amendments to define the meaning of the word "temporary." The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that sometimes the Income Tax has been imposed for one, two, or three years. It would in all those cases be a temporary tax, and in order to have some definition I have suggested that we should leave out the word "temporary," and insert what I believe the right hon. Gentleman means—"imposed or renewed for one year." The word "temporary" leaves the matter quite uncertain, because it might apply to cases where the tax has been imposed for two, three, and in some instances for seven years.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are considering that point. It is really a matter for drafting, and I think there is a good deal in what the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I address myself to this subject, and I hope the Committee will recognise it, in an entirely non-party spirit. I do not think that I can claim to speak for a united party. I have not sought to get party opinion on the subject, and I do not know how far I shall carry with me in what I say the assent of the Gentlemen sitting behind me and with whom I usually act. This is one of the occasions where certain Members of the House are always suspicious. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) regards with the not unnatural suspicion of one who has not crossed the narrow gangway any union between the two Front Benches. Great as he distrusts the action of the Government at any time, he never suspects them more than when they receive praise from this side of the House. I confess I come to the consideration of this question as an old Treasury man, with perhaps Treasury prejudices, and certainly with that desire which must be strong in one who has held the positions I have held, that the King's Government should be carried on with the greatest advantage to the State and the minimum inconvenience to the subject. I am therefore more concerned with the practical working of such proposals as are made to us than I am with the very interesting, but more theoretical, constitutional considerations which naturally arise out of them. I have read, for instance, a very able and a very interest-
  846
  ing letter in this morning's "Times" from the gentleman whom we may call the real, though unwilling, father of this Bill, I mean Mr. Gibson Bowles. To him—and I understand he argued his case with extraordinary ability in the Courts—what I may call the constitutional aspects of the case transcend all others. I do not wholly share his view, but, if the decision of the House of Commons should not on this occasion be what he would desire to see it, I think he may still feel that he has to his credit a real victory in the matter of fiscal proceeding.
  It has long been a doubtful question how late the Government could postpone the Budget. They have until recent years generally attempted to get it through at a comparatively early stage, and in most instances they have succeeded. Between them, the Government and Mr. Gibson Bowles have now proved that we cannot postpone a Budget indefinitely, and the great result of Mr. Gibson Bowles's action will be that in future, if we follow in any respect the course which is urged upon us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it will be necessary for the Government to bring forward their financial proposals early and to press them upon the attention of the House of Commons without any undue delay. I think that is a real service achieved by Mr. Bowles; I think the postponement of the Budget until the late autumn, which had become habitual in the last three years, was a positive scandal, really a neglect of duty on the part of the Government, and scarcely less on the part of the House of Commons, to which it was high time we should put an end. That result will have been achieved. There is a much greater inconvenience in the total suppression of that which for some fifty years has been Our practice. This Mr. Gibson Bowles appears to feel. As I am going to try and discuss this question impassionately and not from a party point of view, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do the same in subsequent stages as he certainly has done to-day, and, What is more, that his Friends behind him will also do the same. Whatever we do, let us see that the new rules hold equally for both, that the same restrictions apply to a Liberal Budget as to a Unionist Budget. Do not let us at the outset have it in mind, either on the one side of the House or the other, that there are certain financial proposals which we as a party or as individuals desire, and that for those we should secure the greatest

  847
  facilities, whilst there are certain other proposals we oppose, and that those we should subject to the greatest disabilities.
  I am not deeply wedded under modern conditions to the preliminary Financial Resolutions which now precede all Money Bills. They arise out of historic circumstances very different from our own, when the same kind of formal notice by Orders of the Day, printed and circulated at our houses, could not be got, and when Members got their only knowledge of what was proposed through the reading of the Resolution at the Table of this House itself. I should be quite prepared—this is not a new declaration on my part, but I repeat it because it is germane to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said—I should be quite prepared at any time to see a Committee of this House, a responsible Committee, appointed to seriously review our financial procedure and consider whether considerable amendments might not be made in it. But in the meantime we have this Resolution. I agree with the general statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is undesirable to try and do in a Resolution everything that you may desire to see done in the Bill founded on the Resolution, and I think my hon. Friend will probably find it convenient to have some of their Amendments, with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his sympathy, discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, rather than try to insert what are, in fact, elaborate drafting Amendments into a Resolution. I am not at all certain, if we attempt to pursue that course to any extent, that we may not find, when we get to the Committee stage, we have unfortunately tied our own hands.
  But there are some questions raised by my hon. Friends which we shall be bound to discuss here, even if, in some cases, my hon. Friends do not propose to take a Division on them. As an example, take the argument adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) that paragraph (c) is wholly unnecessary, or, if not wholly unnecessary, that it is a wrong way of getting out of the particular difficulty at which it is directed. I think it is clear that an objection on principle of that kind ought to be discussed now, at any rate, whether it be divided upon now or not, a matter which my hon. and learned Friend will, of course, decide upon after hearing the discussion that may take place. As regards
  848
  procedure, I will only say that, personally, I should prefer to discuss the exact wording of Amendments which are substantially agreed in the Bill rather than on the Resolution. But I want to preserve our right to raise special cases even at this initial stage. As regards the Amendments of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken, I think all of them were of importance, and nearly all would make this Bill more in harmony with my views on this subject than at first sight the Resolution appeared to be. In nearly every case where the right hon. Gentleman has said he is prepared to accept the Amendment I think that Amendment would bean improvement on any Bill which did not contain it.
  Next, I come to a question which I want the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider. He indicated that, on his own side of the House, some Amendments had been put down to exclude new taxes from the scope of the Bill, and he expressed his readiness favourably to consider that matter—a declaration which was greeted with smiling cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite, cheers which, I think, pointed to the fact that they had particular financial proposals in their minds to which they were not inclined to give any favour or support. Of course, hon. Gentlemen must have had in view in a matter of this kind proposals not emanating from a Chancellor of the Exchequer on their own side of the House. What I would suggest is that they should deal with all Governments equally. Let their proposals have the same chance that you ask for your own Budgets. I say at once I have never concealed the fact that it would be possible to bring into force a whole scheme of revenue of a reformed character for the first time on the first day on which a statement disclosing it is made to the House of Commons. That may be applicable to individual new taxes within the limits or scope of that to which we are more or less accustomed, but it would be impossible, on the strength of one Resolution, or indeed a hundred Resolutions, passed through the course of twenty-four hours, to bring in a wholly new system of taxation. Much as I might like to do it, I never have said that that would be a practical plan.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: It would be possible.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: As a practical politician I have not contemplated that way of procedure. But if you

  849
  are going to consider everything that is possible, you will make it very difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry this Resolution or this Bill, because there will be no less caution felt on that side of the House and no less precautions desired than on this side.
  Mr. THOMAS LOUGH: There might be objections to these words "including new taxes" quite apart from Tariff Reform. A Free Trade Government might propose most objectionable new taxes and try to push them through in one sitting of the House of Commons.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is quite true; Free Trade Governments often do such things. But I want the House to look at a practical point. I am trying to deal fairly with the House. I do not wish to say, on behalf of my party or myself, that any future Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be entitled to take advantage of any facilities that the procedure of the House affords him for passing whatever measures he has in contemplation. I do not want to say that. But I do want, for the sake of convincing the House, to say that the case I am going to put is one that should be considered quite apart from the question of Tariff Reform. I think it worth while to say that it was not my idea of the introduction of a Tariff Reform Budget that a Tariff Reform Chancellor of the Exchequer would try to impose several hundred new duties in a single sitting, and bring them into force the next day. I do not think that would he possible. But does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really mean that no new taxes should ever be collected on the strength of a Resolution? It may be just as urgent to collect new Customs Duties as it is to collect an addition to the Income Tax. Indeed, the probabilities are it will be much more urgent. Suppose we had never heard of Tariff Reform. Suppose we take such Budgets as were introduced by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to finance a great war. You must not judge it by whether you think the House of Commons should have approved those taxes or not. That is not the question. The question for the House is, assuming that the Government were ready to propose the taxes, and assuming that the Houses of Parliament of the day was ready to carry them, which was most important — that you should have immediate authority to levy the additional Income Tax or the new Sugar Tax. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for West Islington thinks
  850
  there is nothing like sugar, and that to tax it is a crime.
  Mr. LOUGH: No, no.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That House of Commons did not think so, and this House does not think so, because it has continued to tax it ever since, though at a reduced rate. I admit when these taxes were introduced they were not introduced as a means of changing our fiscal system and laying the foundation for a fiscal system of a different and as was thought a better kind for the future. They were levied in order to provide for the urgent and insistent needs of the year. It was not sufficient, as it would be in the case of a Tariff Reform Budget, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "I shall not get much revenue this year, but we will go forward and wait until the revenue comes at the latter end of this year or the beginning of next year." He wanted the revenue at once. He wanted these taxes urgently, and if he could not have collected both on the strength of the Resolution, he would have lost much more by deferring the collection of the Sugar Tax than he would have done by deferring the collection of the Income Tax. In the case of sugar enormous stocks could have been cleared at once, just as in the case of tea, whisky or brandy. There was a very true observation in Mr. Bowles' letter this morning, that, in the case of such moderate duties as Tariff Reformers in this country contemplate, the temptation to the trade to forestall is very slight. In many cases no doubt they would not be able to get delivery in time. But even if they could, the duties would not be half enough to recoup the additional expense in other respects. But when you come to the existing Customs or Excise Duties they are so heavy and remain so large that it is worth the traders' while to forestall any increase, if you get either an increase or a new tax.
  I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be in a hurry to exclude all new taxes from this Bill. If he does, though he may not be putting any obstacle in the way of any present intention he has, he may gravely hamper himself or some successor at a moment of national crisis, when you require immediately large financial resources to meet the expenses of some great war. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I make to him the appeal which he made to Gentlemen on this side of the House

  851
  in the strongest terms I can make it, that at any rate he should not accept that limitation at the Resolution stage, but that he should insist on keeping full power in the Resolution to deal with cases as may seem fit when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee. If there is one Amendment more than another which, as it seems to me, aims at the very root of the principle the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to assert, and which might be absolutely destructive to the administration of our financial business, it is the one which would exclude from the benefit of this Resolution any new taxes whatever. I quite agree there are new taxes which ought not to have the benefit of this new procedure. But there are taxes which ought to have the benefit of it, because they would be levied in time of urgency, when revenue is of the utmost importance, and because the articles on which they are levied are of a kind which can be cleared from bond between the passing of the Resolution and the final passing of the Budget Act. I think that is almost all that I wish to say. I am afraid I have said it at greater length than was necessary. There is just one other observation I should like to make in reference to an Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Steel-Maitland), which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his intention of meeting. It is an Amendment intended to provide that, having exhausted the validity of one Resolution, you should not renew the tax without a Budget by bringing in a second Resolution. That is a thing which must be guarded against. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that what he wanted to provide against was the proposing of an exactly similar Resolution a second time. We want to provide a little more than that—not merely against an exactly similar Resolution, but against a colourable imitation of it. These are matters of extreme difficulty in drafting, and that is an argument in support of not dealing with them until we have the words in full. I think this Bill will be an extremely difficult Bill to draft. We are now forced to define the limits within which we will permit a practice which has hitherto had all the practical force of law without the sanction of law. We have to part with a part of our Constitution, and that is never an easy task. For myself, I must say that I think the position in which the judgment
  852
  in Bowles versus the Bank of England leaves us does require fresh legislation, and that I cannot meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any but a sympathetic spirit at the opening of his effort to deal with the difficulty.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I wish I could feel anything like as happy as the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the Resolution brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the difficulties wholly created, as it seems to me, by the decision in the case of Mr. Gibson Bowles. Six months ago, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that we should pass a Resolution in somewhat the same words as the present Resolution, he will remember that I pleaded with him to give us time, and he acceded to that request. I am bound to say that the six months which have passed, during which I have been considering this matter, have done nothing to make me more reconciled to the proposal that this House should, by mere Resolution, tax the people of this country. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us that this has been the practice for several generations. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not claim to go back further than sixty years ago.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: My right hon. Friend can go a little further back in regard to Customs, but even there he is short of a century. His sixty years only take us back to 1853, the year of Mr. Gladstone's great Budget. The truth is that the practice dates from the time when Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when he so greatly simplified the taxation of this country that very few important taxes have been imposed from that time down to the present. I do not, for one, believe that the practice was a regular one. It was accepted because of its practical convenience in certain respects. I do not think anyone really believed that this House, by Resolution, could put on a tax. I was very much struck by certain words used by Mr. Justice Parker in the course of his judgment, in which he expressed great surprise that these Resolutions, which had been devised, as it were, by the House of Commons in order to procure delay in imposing taxes upon the people, had actually been brought forward as a means of hastening the

  853
  imposition of the taxes. The words used by Mr. Justice Parker were:—
  "Such Resolutions were necessitated by a Parliamentary procedure adopted with a view to the protection of the subject against the hasty imposition of taxes, and it would be strange to find them relied on as justifying the Crown in levying a tax before such tax was actually imposed by Act of Parliament."
  The Resolutions, instead of being intended to hasten taxation, with a view to its collection on the very next day after the passing of the Resolutions, were really intended as an extra and necessary stage in the process of imposing taxes upon the people. That is why I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, speaking purely in a non-party sense, which I gratefully recognise, did not realise the great distinction there is between new taxes and other taxes in the Resolution. I am sincerely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for agreeing to strike new taxes out of the Resolution. He does not meet the whole of my objections to his Resolution, but he does go far to modify them. We know that at any rate the tax to be imposed will be on certain recognised lines, and within definite limits. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not go further. The greater part of his difficulties would disappear if the taxes were levied for the year ending on 30th June instead of the present date. For instance, in the case of the Income Tax, no real difficulty would arise at all if it were not for the fact that to-day there is no Income Tax leviable by law. That is the real secret of this Resolution. If the Income Tax ran to 1st July instead of 6th April, it would have been very easy to pass an Income Tax Act, if necessary, before 1st July. The reason which led Mr. Gladstone to unite all the taxes of the year in one great Act no longer remains. The modifications which have taken place in the Constitution make it impossible for particular taxes to be delayed in another place, therefore nothing would be easier than for us to pass the Income Tax Act before 1st July, if it were introduced separately from the rest of the Budget. With regard to the Income Tax, I remember that the right hon. Gentleman stated last July that very little of it was lost, because it was collected afterwards. Therefore little harm is done in legalising a Resolution, so far as Income Tax is concerned. I never knew a case where Lord Melbourne's aphorism applied better—
  "Why can't you let it alone?"
  If we do anything, the Chancellor should content himself with merely dealing
  854
  with that part of our practice which was interfered with by the judgment in the case of Mr. Gibson Bowles. I have put down an Amendment to that effect, although I do not know whether it will be worth while moving it. In regard to Customs Duty, I desire to point out to my right hon. Friend and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I think both of them are a little too much influenced by the practice of this country. No one admires our system more than I do, but seeing that the practice of collecting Customs has prevailed for something like eighty years, and that it is not the practice in the United States, France or Germany, nor, so far as I know, in any of the great tariff countries—countries which rely far more upon their Customs revenue than we do—I cannot think that the case for the immediate collection of the taxes is so strong as it is stated to be by the right hon. Gentleman opposite or my right hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that if we do not have the immediate collection of taxes as soon as the Resolution is passed in Committee of Ways and Means—that is, collection in twenty-four hours, and before the House of Commons knows the words of such a Resolution officially—there will be a great inrush of commodities, a great deal of forestalment, and great evils ensuing in regard to revenue. There are natural difficulties in the way of that in the case of a good many commodities. In the case of tea, it is not easy to get a tremendous quantity of it out of bond in a great hurry, because it is a strictly limited amount.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You could get a year's supply of tea, tobacco, spirits, or sugar out of bond at any one time.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I do not think you could get a year's supply of tea, tobacco, or sugar out of bond at one time. There are great obstacles in the way. There is, first of all, the payment of the duty and the interest on the duty. In all these cases you would only be dealing with probably small increases in the duties. There is the difficulty of warehousing goods when they are taken out of bond; there is the insurance on the goods while they are not sold, and there is always the risk, after you have taken them out of bond, that you may not have rightly interpreted the intentions of Parliament, and that you may have involved yourself in a loss instead of saving money, as you expected. I admit that under a system under which you had

  855
  to give notice that you were going to vary Customs Duties there would be a great deal of forestalment. That is undeniable, but it is not altogether impossible to follow the goods to some extent to know who has taken them out and to get from them the increased taxation afterwards. It might hasten the carrying of your Act legalising it, and thereby incidentally be an advantage. I cannot deny that by giving notice there might be an enormous amount of forestalment under the new system. But there is a great deal now. No Chancellor of the Exchequer would deny that when new taxation has been expected for some time before, there has constantly been a great deal of forestalment, for in one year Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had £3,000,000 of forestalments on tobacco and other dutiable articles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always complained in his Budget speech of the amount of forestalment that has gone on in expectation of taxation. That speculative forestalment means a great disturbance of the market generally. I am not sure that in the long run, although it might interfere with the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his estimates, and although he would get less money out of the increased tax in the first year it was put on, that there would not be greater stability and certainty in the trades concerned. It should be remembered that the money which is not paid in taxation is not lost—it is only loss of revenue, and not loss of wealth; therefore, all that it really involves is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have a different way of forecasting the revenue he is likely to receive. He would not get from the increased tax as much revenue as he gets at present, but he would gain something in less disturbance to the trades concerned, and I do not think he would be able to make an accurate estimate of what the revenue might be in such years. Then I am met with the cry used by right hon. Gentlemen, "Oh, but you often want to raise taxes quickly in the emergency of a war." In those cases nothing is easier than to pass your Act quickly. There again you need not wait for your annual Budget in such cases; in fact, ex hypothesi, you are raising the money in a hurry to meet an emergency.
  856
  You could pass an Act of Parliament in such a case easily inside a week. All these fancy terrors which are held out to us as the result of giving notice would really not occur in such a case.
  There is one other objection which I have to the procedure under this Resolution, and that is that it seems to contemplate postponing the Budget till late in the year every year. I do not think it is without cause that the Budget has been treated by the House in the past as the most important business that we had to transact during the Session, and I do not view with any satisfaction the setting up of a procedure which contemplates it as natural that the Budget should be postponed till the end of July or August before it is seriously considered by the House. When I have used that argument talking the matter over privately with friends, I have been met by the remark, "You will never get any more legislation through the House at all under modern conditions if you take your Budget first. It will be used as a means of preventing the discussion of other measures. New Clauses will be moved and so on." That device would be used no doubt, but, after all, we are living in rather exceptional times in regard to legislation at present. [Cheers.] I say that perhaps from a different motive from that which induces hon. Members opposite to cheer. I want the legislation, but I do not contemplate that we shall for ever have large arrears of legislation. I look forward to resuming a more natural condition in which the Budget of the year will really be the most important legislation that we shall have to transact. I would far rather that my right hon. Friend should realise the very exceptional nature of the times through which we are passing, which no one knows better than he, and that he should rather meet by temporary devices the difficulty which no doubt exists at present than by really changing our financial procedure, which has weathered a good many storms in the past, and which I think should not be altered without the very closest and gravest consideration. I feel so many objections to the Resolution as originally proposed that I did not want to let it go through in silence. My right hon. Friend considerably relieved my mind by omitting new taxes in the scope of his Resolution, and, though I still think he might have met the difficulty in other ways, his present proposal, with the Amendments which he has indicated he will accept, will

  857
  diminish the extent of the change, and to that extent, at any rate, it is a very great improvement on the Resolution as it stands on the Paper.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The hon. Gentleman says we are living in abnormal times. We are. Anyone who reads this Resolution will say that this, after all, is one of the most revolutionary proposals which have ever been proposed to the House of Commons. It may be necessary, but it is most revolutionary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was only giving statutory form to what has been the practice of the House of Commons and of the Treasury for something like sixty years, and he added that this Government was not anxious to extend the practice. But, after all, there is a very great deal of difference between usage and custom and something that is made statutory. The right hon. Gentleman hit on one blot himself in this proposal to make this custom statutory when he said it would be a premium on the late introduction of Budgets. No doubt, as long as it was usage and custom and as long as it was open for anyone to raise some objection in a Court of Law, every Government had an incentive to hasten the day when the collection of these taxes should not be by usage or by custom, but when it should be legalised by an Act of Parliament. I am certain that if this Resolution passes, all Chancellors of the Exchequer will find their Budgets squeezed out by Prime Ministers who will be desirous of promoting legislation, sometimes for the sake of carrying out pledges which have been made to the electors and sometimes because of the enormous party pressure or the public opinion that is behind that legislation. For my own part, while I fully recognise that we are bound to deal with a very difficult situation and are bound to try and find some way out of it, I do not think merely because one has been connected with the Treasury, even because one has occupied the high position of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), one is bound to part with one's House of Commons spirit.
  I cannot help thinking that the House of Commons is very rapidly losing its control over all public expenditure and even over the imposition of taxation. If this Resolution is carried in its present form—I do not say the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would abuse or would extend the Resolution in practice, but he would sometimes be sorely tempted to do it—it will
  858
  not be long before Chancellors of the Exchequer will use the powers given them under this Resolution, and hon. Members will find that they have parted with a very large power to criticise taxation which is imposed upon the people in a single night without any notice whatever being given to the people of the country. After all we are bound to look at this Resolution from the point of view of what is possible under it, and not of what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer means to do under it. I have very little doubt in my mind that, although he puts down this drastic Resolution, he does not mean to use it for any other purposes than those which he sketched, but there will be the power, and we must examine it and try to ascertain, before we vote for it, what is possible under it and what future Chancellors of the Exchequer may do. I did not quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept an Amendment to omit all new taxation from the Resolution. I think he merely said he would listen to the arguments and he thought he might be unable to resist such a proposal. Particularly now that he has been fortified a little bit by the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who does not appear to have any timidity as to the application of the Resolution to new taxation, I am not sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to accept an Amendment omitting new taxes. At all events we must argue the capability of Chancellors of the Exchequer to use the Resolution from the point of view of the Resolution as it stands. From that point of view let us look at what is possible. It will be possible, if the Resolution becomes the Statute law of the country, for any Chancellor of the Exchequer, without practically any notice whatever to the House of Commons and still less to the country, by a single Resolution, passed in Committee of Ways and Means, not even reported to the House of Commons, discussed perhaps in the small hours of the morning under gag and guillotine, to impose some new taxation of a very novel kind and possibly, if the opinion of the country were asked, of a very unpopular kind. Supposing the Resolution had been upon the Statute Book when Mr. Lowe's Match Tax or when the Van and Wheel Tax of the late Lord Goschen was introduced, would it not have been perfectly possible by Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, moved with practically no notice, to have carried both taxes, which proved

  859
  to be so unpopular that Ministers dared not proceed with them, and both had to be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman may say no one would propose to do such a thing. I do not feel so sure. I think when Ministers find themselves in possession of powers like these they take the easiest road to success.
  The right hon. Gentleman again may say that after all these taxes are only to be imposed for a limited period. They would after all have to come into the Finance Bill sooner or later, and if they were not popular they would be withdrawn, or the Ministry would be withdrawn. But if taxes of that nature were imposed even for a short period, even for two or three months, they would have to be collected. The whole object of this Resolution is to collect these taxes the very moment they are imposed. Suppose the Van and Wheel Tax had been passed in Committee of Ways and Means, and I am not sure if it had been possible for the Government of the day to use such a simple process, knowing little of the storm which was brewing, they would not have adopted that process of simply moving that the new tax be collected after a vote in Committee of Ways and Means, whole industries and trades would be dislocated for months, even although three months later the House of Commons might refuse to put the taxes upon the Statute Book in the shape of a Finance Bill. And it is possible to imagine that a Dissolution might occur during the limited period, particularly if you extend your limited period right into August. Dissolutions frequently take place in July. What is going to be the condition of affairs? These taxes will be statutory. They will be no longer collected by usage and custom. Then will occur a Dissolution. They will be statutory only for a limited period. The limited period is reached during the Dissolution. All the taxes collected up to that time have been legally collected. Directly the statutory limit disappears all taxes collected outside that period would, I imagine, be illegally collected.
  Then, again, there might be the very gravest confusion in the whole of our financial system. It is perfectly possible for hon. Gentlemen opposite to imagine that this would be a great power in the hands of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was about to adopt a policy of Tariff Reform. My right hon. Friend has said
  860
  that he, of course, would not think of using such powers even if he found himself in the position to do so for the purpose of altering the fiscal system of this country by a series of Resolutions bringing in a variety of taxes on manufactured goods. But, after all, it would be possible under this Resolution as it stands for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to entirely alter the fiscal system of this country without any notice, without any adequate discussion, by a series of Resolutions which could be carried under the gag and guillotine which all Governments, I admit, will have to use in some form or another. Such Resolutions could be carried easily in that way, and it would be perfectly possible to place upon a great variety of articles duties without any adequate notice to the country. It is quite true that the Government might have a mandate for Tariff Reform. I am a Tariff Reformer, but for my own part I should think it a very mean and underhand way of bringing about Tariff Reform in this country, unless the House of Commons was allowed a full, free, and frank discussion of any proposed system of Tariff Reform. A full, free, and frank discussion would be given if my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) were Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we must look at these powers as they might be used. Let us suppose that a system of finance has been instituted in this country under which a great variety of new taxes might be imposed by a Resolution of this kind, without any real opportunity being given to the country to know what new form of tariff was about to be introduced. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "You must recognise that I am in a difficulty. What do you propose yourself?" I think he has got himself into the difficulty.
  I cannot agree with the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) that this difficulty is wholly due to the cleverness, great knowledge, and industry of Mr. Gibson Bowles. He deserves all the credit you give him for all these qualities, but I believe this usage and custom which has prevailed to a large extent now for fifty or sixty years would never have been challenged had it not been that the Government invited the challenge by postponing the Budget until a period which absolutely cannot be defended by any Member of the House in any circumstances. It was on account of their own lâches that they laid themselves open to this form of attack. We all feel the difficulty of the position, and

  861
  we have to find some method of dealing with it. I very much regret the situation, because I think we will find ourselves in a position of enormous difficulty if we adopt the method proposed by the Government. I think almost anything would be better than this Resolution. The Government would have been well advised if at the beginning of the Session they had appointed a small Committee—I believe it would have acted in a non-party sense—to go into the question with the officials of the Treasury in order to see what system could be devised by which a large amount of revenue might be prevented from leaking out to the loss of the country and the Treasury without putting on the Paper these drastic, revolutionary, and far-reaching proposals so full of danger, not only to the present House of Commons, but perhaps to other Houses of Commons which will come after. I think we could do much to rectify some of these losses which might otherwise be occasioned if we were to meet earlier in the year and bring in our Budget always as the first and most important thing the House of Commons has to do in the way of business, and if we were also to remodel our procedure in connection with the Debates on Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, and in Debates on the Budget. I have thought for a great number of years that our present system is antiquated and cumbrous. There are far too many opportunities for making the same speeches over and over again. A far quicker process ought to be devised for carrying on our financial procedure in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has intimated that he is anxious to set up a Committee to inquire into the procedure of the House, and I hope he will take this particular question seriously to heart and see whether he cannot set up a Committee to devise, if they can, machinery by which we can remodel and recast our procedure in connection with Budgets.
  It is absurd to have debates in Committee of Ways and Means—I think it is very wise and proper that Resolutions in Ways and Means should be reported to the House—and then debates on the First and Second Readings, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. All these debates often elicit the same arguments and criticism, and I think we might deal with this difficulty to a certain extent by remodelling and recasting the whole of our financial procedure. That
  862
  may not be enough. If any measure of this kind has to be adopted, and if there is no other way of stopping the leakage of revenue except by some measure of of this kind, I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notwithstanding the support given to-day by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, will, in the first place, take care when he brings in his Bill that it does not apply to new taxation. I cannot help feeling that it is far too great a power to put into the hands of any Minister or Government. We see day by day the rights of the House diminished, While the authority of the Government is becoming more and more accentuated. Some day a Government of which my right hon. Friend might be a Member might desire to have more power. For my part, I think these powers should not be stolen from the few remaining powers which the House of Commons still possesses. If the day comes when any Government will have to call on the patriotism of the House of Commons in case of necessity on account of a great war in which we might be engaged, I do not believe any House of Commons will resist the call of duty, and I do not believe any Government will be unable to obtain the necessary Supply and the necessary revenue for carrying on a war in which they have the country at their back. I am not going into criticism which it will be possible to make when we come to the various Amendments on the Paper. I hope we shall have a general discussion on the Resolution now, and discuss the Amendments later when they are introduced by the right hon. Gentleman into the Bill which is to be founded upon the Resolution now before the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: I wish to interpolate a remark in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It would be a convenience to me to know if hon. Members desire to take that course and reserve their Amendments until the Committee stage of the Bill which is to be introduced.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I was anxious to ask one question on a point of Order, apart from anything else. I am not aware how far discussion on Amendments at this stage of the Resolution interferes, if it does at all interfere, with discussion of Amendments later on the Bill as printed. It is exceedingly important that the House should be free in the Committee stage of the Bill to move Amendments, for we cannot fully consider the Bill until we

  863
  see it in print. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the procedure on this stage of a Financial Resolution to say how far Amendments moved now would interfere with Amendments on the Bill.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I desire to ask your ruling on the question whether it is advisable or not to discuss these Amendments now. It is a question of expediency, but no discussion of Amendments to the Resolution can possibly affect questions that arise on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am glad the Noble Lord has put that point to me, and I think it is fair that hon. Members should know what my views are. There are two separate points. The first is as to Amendments which may be moved and carried at this stage; and, secondly, the question whether discussion at this stage will affect discussion on the Committee stage of the Bill. With regard to the Bill, any Amendments that are carried now in the form of limitations to this Resolution will, of course, limit the freedom of hon. Members when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. No Amendments in Committee on the Bill would be able to go beyond the limited scope of the Resolution now passed, so that if we had detailed Amendments introduced in the Committee stage of the Resolution that might, as the right hon. Gentleman said half an hour ago, have the effect of limiting the future discussion in Committee on the Bill in a way that hon. Members do not quite understand at the present time. It is obvious that when we have the Bill in front of us we will see better what the effect of certain things will be than we can do when discussing a Resolution of this kind. With regard to the second point put by the Noble Lord and by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks as to how far discussion now would affect discussion on the future stages, the only thing I can say is that possibly the same Chairman will be in the Chair, and the House will not wish to have unnecessary repetition at a later stage. It has been, of course, customary to take quite a limited review of these enabling Resolutions and to let the Committee on the Bill go into the details.
  Mr. POLLOCK: May I say with regard to the Amendment I desire to move at this stage of the Resolution, that the effect of it, if carried, would be to limit the Resolution, and therefore the Bill which
  864
  is to be brought in. I desire to move it at this stage when the opportunity comes.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Practically all the Amendments on the Paper are limiting Amendments, and the arguments of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Pollock) would apply to them as well as to his own. If one is moved I think we shall have to move all. If the Committee postpones consideration of these Amendments, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could, when the Bill is introduced, implement the promises he has made to-day relating to the acceptance of certain Amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members take that view then I should be perfectly prepared to call upon those who have Amendments on the Paper to put forward their views at this stage, but I have no power to prevent them from moving their Amendments if they desire to do so.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: On a point of Order. May I ask whether there is any precedent for the Chairman ruling out a limiting Amendment in Committee on the ground that a discussion has been held and the point decided on the Resolution in Ways and Means? Is not the Resolution in Ways and Means one to allow of a Bill being discussed, and is it not the fact that the decision, unless it is of a limiting character against the Resolution, cannot preclude the discussion in the concrete when we get into Committee on the Bill?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must have seriously misunderstood me if he supposed me to say anything to the contrary. My only point was as to the length of discussion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I may give an actual illustration which was in my mind, and which gave me some anxiety. My hon. and learned Friend has an Amendment putting a time limit of three months. Supposing it was carried, would it be out of order to move in Committee on the Bill that two months or four months should be substituted?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Mr. LOUGH: I think that the hon. Members who have already addressed the Committee on my right hon. Friend's Resolution found themselves in some difficulty. My hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Leif Jones) said that the Resolution was a very great change in our procedure. The right hon.

  865
  Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) went so far as to say that it was a revolutionary Resolution. Both failed to do justice to the moderation of spirit which was shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in arguing that the Resolution was of a revolutionary character, asked what position we would have been in if this Resolution had been carried at the time of the Match Tax or the Van and Wheel Tax. I submit that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day was in exactly the same position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in when this Resolution is passed. For forty years before either of those taxes was proposed it was the practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose taxes in this way and to carry out the very spirit which my right hon. Friend has shown to-day. It struck me at first that the Resolution was embodied in rather wide terms, but when I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer going down the Amendments on the Paper and dealing with them in such a sympathetic and non-party spirit, then I felt the Committee should have found its mind greatly relieved and ought to have been able to approach the question in a moderate and practical spirit, and I believe that if they approach it in that way they will have some difficulty in finding fault with the Resolution. All the arguments which have been brought forward have been founded on the most able letter in the "Times" of to-day of my friend Mr. Gibson Bowles, who was for a long time a distinguished Member of this House. Mr. Bowles, as has been freely admitted, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, has done a most useful work in connection with the action which he brought and the success which he has achieved. He secured that the Budget would be brought forward and dealt with promptly by Parliament each year, and he brought this procedure of ours into proper shape, and I think it will be a great deal better that the country will know exactly where it stands, and that future Chancellors of the Exchequer will know where they stand. This will be the great work that Mr. Gibson Bowles has accomplished.
  But when we come to look at his arguments against the Resolution or against the action which the Government are taking, the House must feel that those arguments are particularly weak. I am sorry
  866
  that my hon. Friend here and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite tried to show that they were a grievance to the House. The first argument was that in the middle ages nothing of the kind was found to be necessary—down to 1830. I call the beginning of the nineteenth century the middle ages. When you come to consider the bulk of Budgets in the nineteenth century, and especially the growth in the twentieth century, and the immense payments that nations now make, and the great rise in the amount of taxes levied on the people, all of which have suddenly come upon the world, the Committee must see that an entirely new situation has been created within the last half-century, and it becomes this House to be capable of taking a businesslike view of the actual situation. It was from this standpoint that past Chancellors of the Exchequer adopted the very practice which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to regularise. They saw that it was not practicable to continue the practice which had previously prevailed. I think that it was Mr. Gladstone who invented that principle, and I am sure that, quite apart from any party argument, the House will admit that he was one of the best Chancellors who ever sat in this House. He found it absolutely necessary. All his successors, whether of the party opposite or on this side of the House, folfowed his example. They found it absolutely necessary to impose taxation at once—subject to some limitations which I will mention afterwards. I will submit one or two considerations why it is impossible to vary the procedure which has been sanctioned by fifty years' custom in this country.
  There has been some allusion made here to the great difficulties that may be imposed on commerce in this country or on the people of the country by the sudden imposition of the tax. I ask the Committee to contrast with that the impossible situation which would be created by the tax being held over and the commerce of the country disturbed and everything kept in uncertainty. Let me take an illustration. Suppose it was announced that from the 1st July there would be a tax of 2d. or 3d. a pound on tea, the whole tea trade of the country would be convulsed to-morrow morning, and you would have a perfectly unnatural, unreal state with which nobody could grapple. For whatever time the notice was given, and even after the tax came into operation, there

  867
  would be as much inconvenience, for you would be working out the immense stocks which had been accumulated in this period in which the notice had been given, when vast stocks would have been accumulating. If anyone will consider the great practical difficulty of this procedure he will see that the greatest ease is given to commerce by the quick imposition of the tax. Everybody knows where he is. Everybody knows that a certain tax has got to be paid. Pay your tax, then, and you can deal with the articles, and no one man has got an advantage over the other. You may say that in three months the tax may be abolished. If you are going to do so, abolish it quickly. Avoid the uncertainty of allowing commerce to be carried on in uncertain conditions. That will be found to be one of the best courses that this House can adopt. Anyone who reads Mr. Bowles's letter in the "Times" will see that he says give notice, and that notice is given in other countries. First, may I say that those countries are tariff countries. They have got such wide tariffs that it would really be difficult for them to handle the matter without giving notice. But I do not think that a Free Trade country like this should follow that precedent. [An HON. MEMBER: "Holland."] I do not know about the procedure in Holland, but I have heard with a great deal of interest that the Dutch are a very wise people.
  Mr. Bowles next says that there is a difficulty in the way of forestalling; you have get to get the money to pay the duty; you have got to have storage accommodation for bonding, and so on. The answer to that is that the greater the obstacle the greater the facilities for persons, companies or trusts, which have got ample financial resources. Take the case of a great trust like the Imperial Tobacco Company. It could raise any amount of money to clear half the tobacco in the country out of bond if it desired. What then would become of all the poor struggling dealers who are fighting at all times an unequal battle against this great corporation? They would have no chance at all, and the procedure under this Resolution, so far from putting obstacles in the way of handling goods, is a course which ought to be adopted. The practice of the country which has now been followed for two generations at least, and which is not in one respect followed completely, that is the practice of immediately putting a new tax into operation, will be found the
  868
  more you examine it, to be the one that creates least difficulty to trade and that makes the tax most easily borne by the community. We have found by practical experience that even in taking off a tax it is best that long notice should not be given and in recent years the period of notice has had to be shortened because there is so much convulsion created in the trade by a long notice being given of an intention to reduce the tax, and there was a large deputation of tea traders I believe to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly to his predecessor, begging him to shorten the period of notice, even when reducing the tax, in order that the period of uncertainty in which all men might know the exact conditions under which the trade should be carried on should be restored as soon as possible.
  For these reasons I think that the procedure proposed is one that ought to be followed, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite might recognise the spirit in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proceeded. I never heard it improved on in the introduction of a difficult Resolution in this House. He went through every Amendment and promised every consideration for it, and especially to hon. Gentlemen opposite he promised that he would limit it to Income Tax and Customs and Excise. He promised that he would be a model Chancellor with regard to his Budget to be brought in, and he promised the Budget within a short time if the Resolution were passed. He did nearly everything that any reasonable man could ask him to do. There is only one point to which I would wish to refer before I sit down, that is in reference to new taxes. The drawing up of the items of new taxes presents great difficulties. I think that there we should, if, possible, secure that there should not be just a mere Resolution and nothing more. But my difficulty does not go the full length of excluding new taxes, because there would be something inconsistent with what I have said if I proposed that new taxes should be excluded. The difficulty which I see with regard to new taxes is a practical difficulty. The great thing is that we should know as quickly as possible, with certainty, what the nature of the new tax is to be. In recent years take, for instance, the Sugar Tax. When that was proposed it affected, I believe, 160 or some very large number of other things as well as sugar, and the way in which it was to be

  869
  levied caused a great deal of discussion. I think some qualification ought to be put in, and, subject to such qualification, new taxation must be dealt with. Some qualification should be put in the Bill laid before the House, or the Resolution should be reported to the House, so that we would know exactly the conditions. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to include new taxes entirely. However, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees his way to include the new taxes I would be satisfied, because I am sure he looks at it from the Treasury point of view. I cannot see how anyone will be able to make any successful opposition to the Resolution, which, followed by a Bill, I believe to be the only way out of the difficulty.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I re-echo the sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that we should approach this question in a businesslike spirit, but I differ from him in this respect, that we have to consider, not the way in which the right, hon. Gentleman introduced the Resolution, but what, the Resolution itself means. I think it is the worst possible suggestion that because a thoroughly bad Resolution has been introduced in a moderate way, therefore we are to give up all matters of principle and all our business instincts—that because a particular Chancellor of the Exchequer has pleased the right hon. Gentleman opposite by what he calls a moderate and businesslike speech, we are to accept this proposal. We must look at the Resolution itself, and there are two or three points on which I join issue with the right hon. Member for Islington. His argument really came to this: In order to carry out what he calls the finance of the State there must be continual progress, and we must sacrifice everything to speed. Of course sacrificing everything to speed means, in the matter of taxation, accepting the ipsi dixit of the Treasury without any discussion.
  Mr. LOUGH: I did not say sacrifice everything to "speed." I said "certainty," so that trade would know the conditions under which it was to be carried on.
  6.0 P.M.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman calls it "certainty"; I call it "speed," for this reason: Certainty would mean that whatever was proposed in the first instance would never really be fairly discussed, but would have to be ac-
  870
  cepted as the basis of the taxation of the country. I object to that altogether, on constitutional grounds. Let me put another objection to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. He was really putting the case for the Treasury against the House of Commons. If this Resolution is passed in its present form, and a Bill is founded upon it, it appears quite clear to my mind that we shall lose effective control over finance in this House substantially altogether, because if everything is to be settled merely by a discussion on a Resolution—for that is what this means—if the basis of taxation is to be the mere passing of a Resolution, then subsequent discussion would become merely theoretical, and would lose any constitutional power. We find in this House that our procedure in a certain sense is degenerating, that we are not getting the attention of the public that we used to have, and that we are not getting their confidence in the same way as we used to do. Here we have a good illustration. I do not think you can withdraw confidence from the House of Commons more directly than by telling the public that we, who are now a single Chamber, are going to deprive ourselves by our own Resolution of all power of fair and legitimate discussion, whatever the proposal as to taxation may be. That is really the substance of it. I see the learned Attorney-General shakes his head. I differ from him totally. You pass this Resolution, say, and it becomes statutory, at any rate for three months—the Chancellor of the Exchequer says for a further time—and taxation is actually being levied as though there were already statutory power to do so. Is it likely, when payments are made without statutory authority over a period of three or four months, that this House can effectively discuss at the end of that time whether a particular tax ought to be levied or not?
  It is nothing but a mockery. You have a tax levied as though it were a statutory tax under a Resolution passed months before, and does anyone in this House believe that under those conditions, on some late day in August, you could get a really effective debate as to whether a particular form of taxation was the proper form or not? Of course you could not. Let me say one word on the constitutional question. For my own part, I think there never was a time in the history of our governmental system when we ought to be more particular to maintain what I call our constitutional

  871
  safeguards. It is quite obvious, I think, that one danger is of this House practically handing itself over into the hands of the Government. That is why we are not, in my opinion, having the confidence of the country in the same way as we did in the old days. It is not to my mind a question of procedure, it is a question of substance. We have to show ourselves ready and capable of dealing with those real constitutional duties which the country thinks we ought to deal with. Foremost, both historically and really, in my mind, is the question of finance, which ought to be put in the forefront as regards all our work in this House. What do you propose at this stage? I am not looking at mere words, I am looking at the substance of the Resolution. We are really giving power to the Government—either side, for I am against both Front Benches on a point of this kind—to impose taxation by mere Resolution, carried by a party vote on a particular night, and without any real detailed discussion. That, in substance, is what it comes to. It is all very well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to speak in moderate terms. He is bound to speak in moderate terms, because he knows that if he disclosed what, to my mind, can be done under a Resolution of this kind, the House or Commons would not allow him to carry the Resolution at all. That is what is called moderation, but the right hon. Gentleman has not disclaimed the real meaning of the Resolution at all. He has had, of course, the support of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they always combine against the rights of this House.
  All they have been able to say is, not that the Resolution would not give them power in the most autocratic way to withdraw the discussion from this House, but, "Oh, are we likely to do it?" I do not trust any Government on points of that kind. The only way in which this House can establish its proper control in matters of this kind is to keep the old constitutional safeguards, which have made us the great House we are, and enabled us to carry out our great financial duties in the past. It is always, of course, the same argument which is brought forward, "But what is your remedy?" The answer to that is that I will oppose to the utmost the putting by Resolution, as apart from Statute, burdens upon the taxpayers of this country. They ought never to submit to such conditions. It is not
  872
  beyond the wit of man, in my view, to deal with those difficulties. The question is, are we going, for the first time in the whole history of this House—for that is what it comes to—to pass a Resolution which would leave us no longer the guardians of the finance of this country, in the sense of insisting that you should have an Act of Parliament before taxation, and that, whether for the purpose of our ease or for the purpose of assisting the Treasury, we are not going to give up those constitutional safeguards which have underlain the whole history of this country. Let me, for one moment, deal with this Resolution. I think it was referred to in an admirable way by the hon. Member opposite, who represents one of the Divisions of Westmorland. What is the meaning of the Resolution? Its meaning is to protect the taxpayer, and it can only be introduced by the Government, and it must be introduced and legislation passed before the taxpayer can be charged at all. The provisions for the protection of the taxpayer were devised by the wisdom of our ancestors, so that you could not put a tax round the neck of the taxpayer before legislation was passed justifying that particular taxation. Do not let us say that anything which the Treasury proposes in the form of the Resolution, without any discussion in the House, is by its ipsi dixit to be justified against the taxpayer. That, in my opinion, would be carrying autocracy in this House far beyond any point which has ever been suggested.
  Once you give up the powers of the House in this way you always make the House demoralised, and you increase the autocratic powers of the Government. A Resolution of this kind ought to have no weight whatever, according to all constitutional government, against the taxpayer, on whom the burden or charge falls. We must, in dealing with a matter of this kind, have regard to what has been our historical evolution. In the old days the idea was that the Executive desired money, and it was for the House of Commons to see that they only got what was necessary, and got it under proper conditions. In other words, we had the Executive on one side, and the House of Commons on the other. To-day the House of Commons and the Executive are, to a great extent, one, and that, of course, is one of our great difficulties; it is a real difficulty in the way of the House of Commons exercising its proper constitutional func-

  873
  tion. What is the effect of this Resolution? It is putting the House of Commons at the feet of the Executive; whereas, at the present moment, we ought to do all we can to give the House of Commons power against the Executive and against the Government themselves. I think this is a most reactionary and retrograde Resolution, going entirely in the wrong direction. It is not giving us the power which we had in the old days; it is taking away from us the power we have now, just at the moment when we Members of the House of Commons find it more difficult, year by year, to establish a real control as regards financial matters. Of course, we all know why this Resolution is necessary. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last few years had introduced his Budget in a normal way, this question would never have arisen. What is the effect of this Resolution? It is to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone his Budget until a chance of fair discussion has gone by. It is of no use to say that a particular Chancellor of the Exchequer will not do that. We are the guardians of the public liberties. We, who represent the taxpayers of this country, are bound, in my view, not to give up the great constitutional safeguards we now enjoy at the dictation of any Government, or at the mere suggestion of Treasury convenience. These matters can be dealt with perfectly easily while maintaining our great constitutional liberties. I wish to call attention to Sub-section (c), which shows how far you can go downhill when once it is proposed to give up these liberties.
  What does that say? It provides that although there is no authority whatever, not even a Resolution of this House, yet we are to be taxed and the taxes are to be collected by the Government until a period of two months has passed. That is a monstrous proposition. Then it says we may consider how to get repayment or recoupment from the Government. I do not know how many hon. Members opposite have tried to get repayment or recoupment from the Government, but for a poor man that is utterly impossible. I can tell them that from my own experience, and I do not think I am going too far as I have had hundreds of cases where people ought to get back 5s. or 10s. or a pound, but how could they get it? In order to get it back it would cost them three or four times as much, an endless official correspondence,
  874
  red-tapism for months, and in the end they might not succeed. I asked the Attorney-General, who has experience in these matters, to bear this in mind, that under paragraph (c) of this Resolution you are going to allow the Government to tax without any statutory authority, or without any authority from this House at all, merely on the notion that some time or other within a period of two months these poor people may be able to get back what may have been deducted from them under what I would call an illegal Government tax, which is a mockery again as regards the right of the subject. How can a poor man take action against the Treasury, with all the red-tapeism and officialism, to get back his money, which I know from experience may make a vital difference to him because he is a poor man, and which would be of much greater importance to him than in the case of a richer man, who has got a larger margin? It really is an unparalleled suggestion to find in a Resolution dealing with the financial system of a free country and a free people. I am quite aware that this is a business matter, but there is no excuse in dealing with a business matter to interfere with what I consider to be the fundamental ideas of the free life and free liberties in this country. I will never assent, as far as I am concerned, whatever the Front Benches may do, to this unconstitutional doctrine that you may by a mere Resolution of this House have a charge put on the subject which, according to our historical evolution, cannot be put on without you have what is known as an Act of Parliament, that is the assent in legal form by his representatives in a proper manner and by the other Chamber. On those grounds I am opposed to the whole of this Resolution.
  Mr. HENRY M'LAREN: I rise to support the Resolution, and in doing so I find myself in the fortunate position of being in agreement, unlike some hon. Members on this and the other side, with both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed his willingness to accept an Amendment which is down in the name of an hon. Member on this side to omit the reference in this Resolution to the new taxes. I do not wish to put this Resolution, as it refers to the new taxes, on the same plane as that part of it which deals with existing taxes, because one must recognise it is a far more important thing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  875
  to be able to collect without a day's delay the new duties on goods, which, as being already dutiable, are very largely stored in bond in this country, than to be able to collect at a moment's notice duties on goods which are not already stored in bond in this country, but which, to avoid the duty, would have to be probably imported from overseas in a somewhat lengthy period. But at the same time there is no doubt that if a new tax could not be imposed except when the Budget Bill actually became law, which would mean a delay of some two months after the first announcement of the tax, that, apart from that loss, there would be the undoubted fact that in those two months there could be brought from abroad goods in anticipation of the extra duty being levied, and probably sufficient for some three or four months afterwards. What would happen therefore would he this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in estimating the yield of these new taxes, would have to allow, not only for the two months before the Budget became law, but for three or four months' consumption of the goods already imported into the country.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why need there be a delay of two months?
  Mr. H. M'LAREN: There would probably be a delay of two months before the Budget Bill became law.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Why?
  Mr. H. M'LAREN: It takes a considerabel time for a Budget Bill to become law.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Three weeks.
  Mr. H. M'LAREN: I very much doubt if any Budget which contains new taxes could be got through both Houses of Parliament in three weeks. I think it would be two months, and that if the hon. Gentleman looks at the time that the past Budgets have taken he will find that very few of them have been passed within that time. Therefore, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in preparing the Estimates, would have to allow for the fact that he could only collect six months of the particular tax, so that he would have either to rely on other taxes or to put the new tax upon a higher scale than would otherwise be necessary. A higher scale would, we know, especially in regard to a new tax, increase the inevitable dislocation of trade. I think the Committee must
  876
  also remember that, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer could only reckon on six months' revenue, in all probability those who dealt in the article would at once put the price up on the consumer the moment the tax was announced, and therefore in all probability the consumer would have to pay the full year's tax while the revenue only got the produce of six months of it. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) suggested that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to bring in a new tax he could have a special Resolution or a special Bill for that tax brought in before 6th April. That would only apply to 31st March.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: That the tax should run until later in the year.
  Mr. H. M'LAREN: That would not prevent forestalments, and what would be the position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer if he were to announce he was going to impose a new tax when possibly even the Estimates for the new year were not out, and at a time when he could not have the correct figures of the receipts of revenue for the current year, and at a time when he would be precluded from announcing the other taxes he was going to put on to make up the balance. I think any Chancellor of the Exchequer who found himself in so impossible a position as trying to bring in one tax by itself at an earlier date, if he once tried such a course, would not be encouraged to proceed with it. This is a question of finance and is so important that I think it ought to be treated in a businesslike spirit. By that I mean the giving to the Executive of ample powers to deal with it in the best way not only for the revenue, but also for the trade of the country and with due consideration to the consumer—that is, giving to the Government ample power so to deal with it when they are supported by this House. Some hon. Members opposite have spoken as if by this Resolution a Government could put on taxes and never come to the House to authorise them. In the first place, the proposal will come before a Committee of this House, and it is only a quibble which distinguishes between the Committee and the full House. The Committee of this House, in the first place, would have to pass this Resolution on the night of the Budget statement, and then the House would have to be consulted upon this tax on the five or six stages of the Finance Bill, and if they

  877
  did not support the Government on every one of those stages then those who had paid the particular tax could have the amount of that tax refunded by the Government, though that, of course, is an eventuality which is not likely under our present Parliamentary system to occur. I therefore on all those grounds ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persist in the original Resolution, and not to accept the Amendment which has been suggested.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member who has just spoken has made a defence of what is called the aristocratic theory of government. He thinks that the Government of to-day know much better than we do, than this House does, or than the subjects of the King generally, what is good for them and the best kind of taxes, and that they should be allowed to make a businesslike arrangement to work them as smoothly as possible to carry out the views of those wise governors who are always labouring for our benefit. I feel sure the hon. Member must be qualifying soon for promotion, because he has already the Front Bench mind highly developed. We noticed in the speeches which we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer the same point of view. Nothing could be more untrue than to say that there is no such thing as aristocratic government to-day. I think the aristocratic government of to-day is that of the two Front Benches of this House. They act, no doubt, with the utmost honesty of motive and they are anxious to do what they can for the good of the country, but they cannot bear to be interfered with by an ignorant House of Commons or a still more ignorant people, and they wish from that point of view to carry on the government of the country. When I am told that the Front Benches and the Treasury would not use those powers unreasonably, I ask anyone to look around at the very many authorities which have passed from this House to the Front Bench, and how varied. This very afternoon we had a striking example and I assented to it, because after the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition assured me that the public interests required it in a matter so grave as foreign affairs I did not feel able to contest their opinion. There is not the least doubt that fifty years ago foreign affairs would have been discussed whether the Front Benches liked it or did not. You may say, and I should be inclined to say, that in this particular in-
  878
  stance that would have been a mischief, but what you have really got there is aristocratic government in foreign affairs, and there is a good deal to be said for it in foreign affairs, and that is probably the sphere of government in which aristocracy does best and democracy worst. When you come to apply the same principle to the finances of this country you are surely taking a step which this House ought to consider very carefully.
  A great deal has been said, and very properly, as to the ability of Mr. Bowles's letter to the "Times." But except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), no one has made any attempt to answer the arguments adduced in that letter. Some of the arguments were brought to the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones), but no answer was made or attempted except by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington. His answer confined itself to two very limited points. The right hon. Gentleman said that under the existing system there was great uncertainty, and that it would give a great opportunity for wealthy trusts. As far as doing away with uncertainty goes, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. You do not escape from uncertainty under any plan. Unless, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman is going to argue that the Resolution would never be varied in its subsequent stages, you cannot get rid of uncertainty. Uncertainty would arise if the House interfered at any subsequent stage, and you would have to face that uncertainty in any case. My hon. Friend reminds me that the Export of Coal Tax was, as a matter of fact, modified in respect to different classes of coal while the tax was going through Parliament. There can be no way of getting rid of that uncertainty. As far as trusts are concerned, I think the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended Mr. Bowles's argument. His argument was that the expense of keeping in store great quantities of goods which had been hastily passed through the Customs House under a lower rate of duty would, except in the case of a very high duty indeed, make it not worth while for traders to evade the new tax. That is true, so long as you are not dealing with a largely increased tax. If you are putting on a very high tax, the argument does not apply. But that is very unusual. It is quite true that the Tobacco Tax and the Spirit Tax are very high at present, and it is not likely that they would be increased in any particular Budget by

  879
  a huge amount. The argument put forward by Mr. Bowles, that other great tariff-producing countries do not have this procedure at all, has not yet been shaken. It is possibly susceptible of answer, but no argument has yet been put forward to show that we cannot do what the United States, Germany, and France do. There is no reason why we should not have the same liberty in this matter that those countries enjoy.
  Let us not deceive ourselves as to how this proposal would work. The moment you make a procedure statutory, you destroy all its elasticity, and you enable the Government of the day to use it unreasonably if they please. Until the right hon. Gentleman strained the system it was always used with great caution, precisely because it was known or suspected to be illegal. The Government always knew that they could not go beyond a certain point. If it is now given statutory sanction, they will be able to use it precisely as suits their convenience. What would suit the Government's convenience? To bring in the Resolution, carry it immediately, and then not touch the Budget again until the very last days of the Session. Every year—at first it would be with some apologies, but gradually it would become customary—the Budget would be dealt with as late as possible in the Session, and would come on jostling the Indian Budget and the Appropriation Bill in the hot weather towards the end of July or the beginning of August, just before the prorogation.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Or in the cold weather at Christmas.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: How would that work? Suppose a new tax were proposed and that tax were severely criticised? The Resolution would be passed in April. It might even be passed in an Autumn Session, as, for instance, in the case of a war. The Resolution would be passed, the tax would be levied, and the matter would come up for further consideration late in the summer. If a weighty criticism were made, how would the Government reply? I can almost hear the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or the present Prime Minister making the statement. The Minister would say, "My hon. Friend or the hon. Member opposite has made a most interesting speech to which the Government attach the greatest possible weight. But the hon. Member must feel that at
  880
  such a late period of the Session it is impossible to revise the financial arrangements of the year. We cannot bring in a new Budget. But I can assure the hon. Member that when the matter is reconsidered next year everything that he has said will be taken carefully into consideration. I hope that under the circumstances he will allow the Bill to pass as the weather is very hot and everyone is anxious to get away for the holidays." He would then sit down amid general applause, the Amendment would probably be withdrawn and the Bill go through. Can anyone doubt that that is the way it would work? I said just now that you might have a Resolution brought in on the outbreak of war. Suppose a war broke out in the autumn, as the South African war did. You might have Resolutions brought in proposing taxation for the war; then the whole matter might be hung up and nothing further be done until the following July. All the time from October until July the whole of the war taxation might be levied without there being any Parliamentary control over the matter at all. By that time the war might be over and every penny of the money spent. The whole interest in the financial question might have passed over, and the Government would be able to do anything they liked in respect to the financial arrangements. If we concede this power in the unrestricted form in which it is asked, we shall be taking another long step towards making the Government of the day independent of Parliamentary control. I should not think the danger so great if the Government confined the operation of the Resolution to a few weeks, and required the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken within a fortnight or three weeks of the passing of the Resolution.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like the Noble Lord to develop his suggestion.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite assent to the general principle of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment. But if you are going to have a closer limitation of time, it is desirable that the limitation of time should be for all the different stages, or at any rate for the different stages of the Finance Bill. For instance, the Resolution in Committee might have effect for a fortnight, and the Resolution on Report for another three weeks, and the Second Reading of the Budget should take place within a month. That would force you to proceed with the Bill in a

  881
  short time. That is a possible course which would prevent the very great abuse which I have sketched to the Committee. But until the Government have shown that we cannot do what other countries do, I do not really see why we should pass this Resolution at all. If the Government can meet Mr. Bowles' argument that we can do what America, Germany, and France do, I agree that we ought to do something, but we ought to do something which would give a real control by ensuring that the particular stages of the Budget Bill would be taken within certain limits of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised, as I understand it, to exclude new taxation from this Resolution. I am very glad that he should be prepared to make any concession of that kind. At the same time, it seems to me utterly inconsistent with all the arguments urged in favour of the Resolution. If there is a case in favour of the Bill which is to be founded upon this Resolution, it applies to new taxes. On the whole it applies even more to new taxes than to existing taxes, because in the case of the renewal of taxes you can meet the difficulty by adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division and extending the operation of the tax until the autumn. If you made the tax valid until 1st September you would do all that was required. The extension of the date would deal with the whole difficulty so far as the renewal of taxes was concerned. When you come to increased taxes and new taxes, I cannot see that there is any distinction in principle between increasing an existing tax and levying a new tax. If you are going to exclude new taxation, I do not see why you should not exclude increases of taxation. So far as I can see, the concession promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer destroys the whole foundation of his argument.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: In the case of an increased tax you are dealing with articles of which there is already a considerable store in bond, and therefore, if you do not give this power, it would come out of bond very quickly, and there would be great forestalments. That does not apply in the case of a new tax.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: That is, no doubt, a consideration which distinguishes the two to some extent, but only for a very short time. In a fortnight or three weeks it would be quite possible to bring in a
  882
  large quantity of the newly-taxed article. Therefore it is only for a very limited time that the distinction could be drawn. I quite agree with what has been said in more than one quarter that we ought to simplify our procedure. It has always seemed to me that the Report stage of a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means and also the Report stage of Supply are superabundant stages under modern conditions, and that if we had only the Committee stages except that we should have a more elaborate First Reading discussion of financial measures than we have of other measures, the procedure in matters of finance would not materially differ from the ordinary procedure. Let us look at the proposed change from the point of view of the control of the House. Do not let us approach the subject merely from the point of view of giving the Treasury supreme control over finance. It is not merely a question of the rights of one party against another; it is a question of the rights of the House of Commons against the permanent officials, who are exceedingly clever and skilful men, and, like all clever and skilful men, they are extremely anxious to have their own way. They wish to manage the finances of the country for the country's good precisely as they please. I would rather have the finances of the country mismanaged by the House of Commons than well managed by the Treasury. Unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am a convinced democrat—at any rate in regard to finance—and upon this matter I think the House of Commons ought to have an effective voice. It is because I think this Resolution tends to destroy that effective voice that I am opposed to it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is really strange how the wheels of fate go round. Here is a procedure which in the first instance was devised as a check upon the Crown to prevent burdens being laid on the people without the consent of Parliament, and it is now to be turned into an instrument to enable the Treasury to get its own way, possibly in spite of the matured judgment of the House of Commons. These proposals illustrate once more how the old unwritten Constitution of this country has broken down. We have seen it in other directions; we are now seeing it in this. I am sure that as the discussion of these proposals goes on we shall experience what an extraordinary difficulty there will be in substituting a written for an unwritten Constitution. The right hon. Gen-

  883
  tleman said that what he was now proposing to regularise was an unbroken practice of sixty years. But who was there to break it in all those years? It was known that it would be to no man's interest to challenge the practice, because, by the working of the unwritten Constitution, the financial proposal would become law before the action could be heard. Therefore, although it was acknowledged by the Attorney-General's predecessor as long ago as 1848 that there was very great doubt as to the legality of the practice, still by the unwritten rule that the Taxing Act would be passed within a reasonable time, it was to the interest of nobody to challenge the practice in the Courts of Law. That unwritten rule as to the early passing of the Budget has been done away with, and hence there has followed the great inconvenience from which I quite admit we now suffer. But I want to ask the Attorney-General whether it is absolutely necessary to extend this Resolution to Customs at all. No judgment has been delivered in regard to Customs. Indeed, as I gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as one can deduce an inference from the obiter dicta of Mr. Justice Parker, it is very probable that the same judgment would not be given in regard to Customs. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will develop that point later.
  I ask, in all seriousness, would the difficulty be got over if, instead of making the Resolution operative, you passed an Act whereby you took power to make retrospective from the date of the Resolution the tax imposed by the Resolution? Say that you brought in the Budget on 10th April in any one year and passed your taxing Resolution the same night, you could surely have a record of all the goods withdrawn from bond from the following day, and, if the House confirmed that Resolution by an Act, there would not be any insuperable difficulty in collecting the particular tax from those who had withdrawn the goods! Even in the case of an entirely new tax on entirely new articles you might take power to have a recording Resolution—that is, if the machinery did not already exist for recording the goods imported in the case of new articles and subject to taxation afterwards. I see that there might be some difficulties in respect of new articles—I do not think they are insuperable—but in the case of articles already taxed I submit it would be per-
  884
  fectly easy, having passed your Resolution and taken power under your Act, to make it retrospective. I am putting this forward as a serious suggestion, which I hope the Government will consider. I want just to enlarge for a moment upon the points which my Noble Friend has raised. Surely the result of the passing of a Resolution like this will be that in practice the Budget will have a very limited discussion in the late days of the Session! What will be the arguments put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? You get your taxes collected by this Resolution early in the Session. When you get into the middle of July, and other points are raised and Amendments are proposed in Committee of the Budget for reducing taxation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make an appeal to the House. He will say that the House has already agreed to these taxes, and unless the Government get their Bill by a certain date they will be null and void, because a limited period has been put into this Bill. You pass your Resolution in April, and the effect of that Resolution will expire on 10th August.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer in July will say, "No one objects to these particular taxes, which were agreed to by the House; in order to make them effective we must get the Bill passed by 10th August." The right hon. Gentleman will stand at that box almost in tears, and will point out how much good money will be thrown away if hon. Members on this side of the House will persist in raising other questions and not passing this Bill. Therefore I rather throw it out for the consideration of my hon. Friends whether there might not be a danger in having the limited period drawn too tight. I am not sure whether it would not be better to make the period a little longer so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not call upon the House to pass this Bill on the strength of there being still a very limited period during which the Resolution of the House takes effect. There is another point which I want to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not think it was his intention—I hope he will state it now—to allow the Resolution to have effect beyond the term of the financial year. We will assume there is to be a three months' limit. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that it might or would be possible on 1st March to propose a taxing Resolution, and that that taxing Resolution would have effect until 1st June, although on 1st March the finances

  885
  of the financial year will not be at an end, and we could not know the results of the working; when the Budget statement will not even have been prepared, and it will have been impossible to prepare it? If he does mean that I submit it is a very great innovation. Surely all the financial proposals ought to be embodied in one financial statement! It would not be fair to ask the House to debate new taxes on new articles in March until they have seen the result of the present year's financial working, and a forecast of the next year's financial working. Under such a Resolution as this it would be quite impossible to do this. Therefore I do ask the right hon. Gentleman in all earnestness to make his Resolution apply only to the current financial year and not to allow it to run over 31st March, because if he does…
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On that point, I would like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that there might be a case of emergency, such as a war. As a matter of fact, Lord St. Aldwyn did this in 1900.
  Mr. J. HOPE: Surely Lord St. Aldwyn followed his special tax up by an Act'
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: He collected the tax under a Resolution of the House.
  Mr. J. HOPE: What might happen would be that the Resolution might be passed in January and the Act might not be passed for a very long time afterwards. There should be an Act confirming the Resolution at the earliest possible opportunity. If there were such an emergency as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I submit that the House of Commons would be only too glad to suspend its Standing Orders and pass the Act required into force as soon as possible. Whatever inconvenience there might be in such circumstances, I do submit that there is the possibility of much greater abuse if you allow taxes to be collected under a Resolution in one financial year before the financial statement of that year and of the following year is made. I quite see that the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty, and that a successor might be in a difficulty too; but I do submit that this Resolution goes far beyond what has been the case. I urge the point of view of retrospective action strongly upon him. I think it would be possible, even at this stage, seeing what difference of opinion there is, to refer the matter to a small Select Committee of this House versed in such matters. The outcome of their deliberations might be embodied in an Act which
  886
  would be retrospective so far as the Income Tax and the Tea Duty go. In that way I believe it might meet the sense of the whole House. If the right hon. Gentleman insists upon driving this Resolution through, I believe he will be opening the door to evils and abuses in the near or distant future which not one of those who support him have any clear conception of at the present time.
  Mr. CASSEL: In this matter the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the House in a spirit of sweet reasonableness. Indeed, he did so to such an extent that it raised my suspicion. When the right hon. Gentleman approaches us in that spirit he always wants to disarm criticism, and if ever there was a case when a Government would be anxious to get rid of that criticism which justly falls upon them, and which ought to be made in regard to them, it is this case. I quite agree that something has to be done to meet the situation which has arisen, but I think this Resolution goes much too far. I will give reasons to prove why I think so. I should like to emphasise this—and I think we ought to emphasise it—that the whole difficulty which has arisen is, in the first place, entirely the fault of the Government, and in the second place I say that the Government have been guilty of a gross neglect of the first duty of a Government in bringing this Resolution up, only to-day. Let me establish those two propositions. I quite agree that it has been the practice since, I think it was said, the year 1853. I believe it was a little earlier, and I think we have in 1830 the first recorded case in connection with the Customs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington described this practice as originating in the Middle Ages. I hope the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to suggest that a certain number of hon. Members in this House might have been born somewhere in the Middle Ages, because that would be the inference from his adopting such a phrase. I will take only two years in which the Government are responsible, two years of the neglect of this Government of the finances of the country, which is the cause of much of this difficulty.
  It is true we have had usage, but it is infinitely better that we should depend upon usage than upon Statute. It has been one of the glories of our Constitution that it depends upon unwritten usages rather than upon fixed terms of Statutes. Even the Cabinet itself is not mentioned

  887
  in any Statute. I think it is a matter for regret that the Committee of Ways and Means of this House should ever have to be referred to in a Statute. That this has to be done is absolutely and simply the result of the neglect of the Government to deal with the finances of the year. I cannot find any year before this Government came into office when the Budget was ever passed after August—not one. What is the remedy of the Government? I will not take 1909–10 for reasons which are apparent, but I will take 1911. What was the record of the Government in 1911? The Finance Bill of that year received the Royal Assent on 16th December. How long did it take to pass it? It took five and a half days for Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and Third Reading; yet the Government did not put it through until 16th December. I have been making it my business to read up some of the old speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was in Opposition. I am deriving great profit and instruction from that course of study. I should have liked to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if we on this side had taken till 16th December to deal with a Finance Bill which had only taken five and a half days to go through the House. I can imagine…
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: Were there any new taxes?
  Mr. CASSEL: There were no new taxes. That is why we complain of the delay. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had been in opposition, would have said that the Government that did that was not fit to govern. If the right hon. Gentleman had said it he would have been right. What about 1912? It is true the Budget was taken early in 1912, on 2nd April, but the right hon. Gentleman did not report it to the House until he had notice of Mr. Gibson Bowles' action in June. The Committee stage in Ways and Means was taken on 2nd April, and the Report stage was not taken until 24th June. I say it is nothing short of a scandal that any Government should have allowed such a lapse of time to occur between these two stages. Moreover, I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman would have reported it even then if he had not been kicked into it by Mr. Gibson Bowles. Although we got the Budget through in that year in August, I think it was only due to Mr. Gibson Bowles' action that we did get it through.
  888
  I think Mr. Gibson Bowles was right to take his action in the new circumstances which arose. He was right, according to the words of the Attorney-General, because the Attorney-General, in arguing his case before Lord Parker, said:—
  "The practice adopted is a fairly convenient one…"
  And these are the words I should like the Committee to mark—
  "that is when the Government is prepared to pass the Bill, but it becomes inconvenient when the Bill is long postponed."
  That was the Attorney-General. Will the right hon. Gentleman get up in this House and repeat the argument he advanced in Court, that this practice, although it might be fairly convenient when the Government is prepared to pass the Bill, becomes inconvenient when the Bill is too long postponed—and there might be a change of Government before the Bill becomes a Statute. The Government did the very thing which was inconvenient from the point of view of the taxpayer, because it left him in doubt for a very long period. Lord Parker puts it himself in the same way. I cannot just get the passage here, but I am content to take the statement of the Attorney-General himself, that it was a convenient practice so long as the Finance Bill was introduced within a reasonable period, but becomes highly inconvenient the longer it is postponed. In the old days the legality of this was at least doubtful, and I think it was one of the cases where ignorance would have been bliss. It would have been undoubtedly better, from the point of view of the country and the Treasury, that it should have been left to rest upon a doubtful contention rather than upon a Statute, and I will use a phrase of frequent occurrence in the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Whose fault is it?" I say it is the fault of the Government, and it ought to be made clear to them and the country why we are driven to the necessity for a written Constitution.
  There is another charge I have to make against them. The Government are to blame for not dealing with this matter until the 7th April. They knew about the 4th November, and I say it was the first business of the Government to see that in some way or other this was put right before to-day. The right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion referred to the Motion he brought in on the 22nd July. The situation then was entirely different. In the first place, the decision had not been given, and, as the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe

  889
  Division pointed out, we did not know what the decision would be. The decision might have been in accordance with the arguments of the Attorney-General, but on the 4th November the Government knew that this matter would have to be dealt with, and it ought to have been dealt with before the 7th April. They found time for all sorts of controversial Bills. They found time for a Bill which they thought would prolong their own existence, but they did not even find three or four days in which to discuss this matter, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has condemned himself to-day, because he said this leads to a certain amount of loss of revenue, so that from the Treasury point of view he condemns himself, because during the month of April a very large amount of interest becomes payable and the Treasury has to pay £10,000,000 of Treasury Bills in April. Are the Treasury going to act upon their own circular, and are they going to ask people to whom the interest is due whether they assent to the deduction? Because the circular which the right hon. Gentleman sent out to the bankers is that they must not deduct unless they have the assent of the persons to whom the interest is due. That means very great inconvenience to the bankers.
  I do not wish to speak on this matter altogether in a party spirit. I regard it as a matter in which it is the duty of the House of Commons to keep the Government up to the mark. I say that it is as grave and serious a neglect of duty as the Government could have been guilty of. With regard to the actual proposal put forward, I feel that something must be done so far as Customs and Excise are concerned. I am not going to anticipate what my hon. and learned Friend will have to say upon his Amendment, but so far as Income Tax is concerned, except in respect of this year, it could be dealt with. But the Government ought to have brought in a Bill between the 4th November and the 5th April to allow deductions, say, for a month. I should like to say a word or two with regard to the wideness of this Resolution. The House ought to appreciate that this is not an ordinary Financial Resolution. What is suggested is the partial repeal of a fundamental Statute of this country. It may be easy to laugh at the mention of the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, or statutum de tallagio non concedendo. But this case was decided on the very ground that it was an infringement of the Bill of
  890
  Rights, and you are departing by this Resolution from a Statute which purports to lay down the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject, and not only that but the conditions upon which the Crown holds its office. The fundamental terms on which William and Mary were invited to accept the sovereignty of this realm were laid down in a Statute which did not deal simply with the acts of the Crown itself, but deals with acts of "evil counsellors and Ministers" as they are called in the Statute. It is against evil counsellors and Ministers that the Statute is directed rather than against the Crown itself. It refers to divers counsellors, judges, and Ministers who endeavoured to subvert the laws and liberties of the Kingdom.
  The fourth point put forward in the Bill of Rights acts contrary to the fundamental right and liberties of the Kingdom, such as levying money for the use of the Crown by pretence of the prerogative for a longer time or in any other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal. I do submit that when a Resolution which strikes at the fundamental law of the realm is brought before this House, we ought not simply pass it in the general terms in which it appears upon the Paper. Supposing we have a Resolution here that, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future to levy taxes in any manner in which he thinks fit without a word from the House of Commons, are we to pass it because he says, "I am going to put it all right in my Bill"? I submit it is not right for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution of this kind contrary to the fundamental rights and liberties of the subject. I say to put this Motion upon the Journals of the House would be discreditable. I agree we have to do something, but consider how far this goes. We are asked to say in effect that any taxes whatever passed by Committee of Ways and Means and never brought to the knowledge of the House itself, but passed by a mere Resolution of Ways and Means, shall have a statutory effect for a limited period without defining the limited period—that is to say, you might never have the necessity for an Act at all. Under this Resolution as it stands you are subverting the Bill of Rights to the extent that you are doing away altogether with the necessity for an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: A Resolution cannot repeal an Act.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: By this Resolution we are overriding and stating as our opinion that the Committee of Ways and Means should have power to impose these taxes for a limited period. It is not even limited so as to make an Act of Parliament necessary at all. This Resolution authorises the founding of the Bill and would enable the Government, by a mere Resolution, to impose income Tax for a year and at the end of that year again to impose it for another year, and in that way never to have an Act of Parliament at all. That is what the Motion would do. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and he means, I suppose, that the Government are going to limit that in the Bill, but as it stands the limiting period is not defined and it goes too far, I submit that considering a Resolution of this kind you are not dealing with an ordinary Money Resolution, but a Resolution which goes to the fundamental Statutes of the Realm. For my part in regard to my own Amendments I shall be largely guided as to whether anyone else moves an Amendment. For instance, if any Amendment is moved suggesting the omission of new taxes, I shall feel compelled to proceed with all my Amendments because I think that new taxes are included in the existing practice.
  What this Resolution ought to do is to give statutory effect to the existing practice. Beyond that it ought not to go. You are going far beyond the existing practice here, and that is why I put down some of my Amendments and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed approval, because I think the existing Practice is limited to Customs and Excise; and, on the other hand, the existing practice does give new taxes, and what is his reason for excluding something which is included in the existing practice, and, on the other hand, including something which is excluded in the existing practice. There can be only one reason and that is a party reason, that it is thought with regard to new taxes it might give more advantage to the Liberal party than to the Conservative party. If you are embodying the practice in the Resolution you ought not, for party reasons, to limit the Resolution making it less than the existing practice where it suits your purpose. I think what we ought to do by this Resolution is, as far as possible, to confine ourselves to the existing practice. I think this Resolution goes far beyond it. I think it would be most unfortunate if we put in the words "Committee of Ways and
  892
  Means." Of course the right hon. Gentle man spoke of the difficulty of goods being taken out of bond in the meantime. I do not think that difficulty would arise. I should also like to point out with regard to the last paragraph that it appears to me to be wholly unnecessary, except so far as this particular year is concerned. You will have to do something for this particular year. It is most inconvenient for the Revenue and for the bankers, and you are going to get a certain loss of revenue. I totalled up the number of millions of interest accruing due to the Government on the security of loans. There are the India 3½ per Cents. in April, the Treasury Bills in April, the Government Loan, and the Russian Loan, with regard to which it will be extremely difficult to collect the Income Tax on the interest. During that period you have to do something because you have neglected your duty in the past. In the future, this part can be met by altering the Income Tax year, which might run from the 1st July to the 1st July. The fact that it runs from the 5th April to the 5th April now is a mere accident, because that is the old quarter day. It used to be the 10th October to the 10th October, and that coincided with the old Michaelmas, when the quarter days were the 5th January, the 5th April, the 5th July, and the 10th October. It was only by a Statute passed in 1854 that the financial year was made the 31st March. The result is that you now get a very short period between the Income Tax year and the financial year, which is not sufficient to deal with the new Income Tax year during that period. I think it would be perfectly easy, without infringing the Bill of Rights, to deal with the Income Tax question by altering the Income Tax year. So far as this particular proposal goes, it seems more objectionable, because you are levying taxation without any Resolution at all, and that ought to be more strictly limited. I recognise that something has to be done, but I do not think there are any terms too strong to condemn the Government for their neglect of financial business in the past by passing their Bills so late, and not dealing with this question before. Now they are in this difficulty something has to be done. I think the words of this Resolution are far too wide, and strike too deeply at the Statute which is the foundation of our liberties, and, therefore, this proposal ought to be vigorously resisted.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the Committee will see how amply justified my warning was. On this matter, I do not claim to speak for anybody but myself. My object in rising a second time is to make a suggestion which may find a wider acceptance than my former observations. I think it is obvious that there is a recognition in all quarters of the House that a situation has arisen which requires to be dealt with, and it is also obvious that there is very great doubt as to the expediency of the measures which the Government are taking. The suggestion I would like to throw out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he should consent to send his Bill, as soon as it has been read a second time, upstairs to a Select Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am not quite certain that the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me has quite appreciated my suggestion. The essential part of sending such a Bill to a Select Committee, is that such a course would not deprive this House of the Committee stage, because it would still have to pass through the Committee stage of this House after returning from the Select Committee, and therefore, the power of this House would be complete over this Bill. That is absolutely essential, because this House could not divest itself of the right to deal with it in Committee of the Whole House. My suggestion is that it should go through a Select Committee upstairs. That Committee could hear Treasury witnesses, and witnesses on the other side if necessary. I really think that is necessary, and by means of such a Committee, I think you might get a Bill generally acceptable to the House. At any rate in this way you will have a better chance of getting an agreed Bill than we shall if we press on with this matter now without any preliminary stage.
  I made my previous speech without any consultation with my hon. Friends with the knowledge that many of them did not agree with me. Since then, I have consulted two of my hon. Friends who have taken a leading part in the Debate, and both of them would welcome the suggestion I have made. I conceive that one practical objection the Chancellor of the Exchequer might urge is, that the course I suggest would delay the passing of the Bill. That must necessarily be so, and no one can say how long such a Committee would take for the consideration of this question. I should think they would not take very long, and at least I should hope
  894
  so, because I might have to sit on the Committee myself. No doubt it would take some time, and it would delay the passage of the Bill. I think one way the Chancellor of the Exchequer might deal with the question is by bringing in a temporary emergency Bill to deal with the collection of the Income Tax this year. I know that is the one serious difficulty which he has to meet, but the outhority for the collection of the Tea Duty does not run out until later in the year. I make that suggestion in the belief that it may help to bring about a satisfactory solution of a very difficult problem on which opinion is divided, not so much between party and party as between different Members of the same party. If my suggestion is not acceptable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, nothing more will be heard of it, and I have done my best to help to bring about a general settlement of a very difficult question.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman, in his concluding sentences, indicated the real difficulty in the way of an acceptance of his suggestion. I think it is desirable that this question should be considered by a Committee of the House, and that there should be a discussion of the various alternatives. My difficulty is that if this Bill is sent to a Select Committee, the probability is, as was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, that it might take a very long time. Witnesses from the Treasury would have to be called, and probably Mr. Gibson Bowles would be expected to give evidence, and, on the whole, it would take a very long tune, and the Bill would be no use to the Government this Session. The hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) provided a very clear, and I thought conclusive reason why something should be done immediately. He pointed out that the Treasury might lose a portion of the Income Tax unless something was done. I think we should have to do something as well with the Tea Duty. I think the Bill might be made a temporary one, and a Committee of the House might then be set up to consider it with an undertaking from the Government that they would deal with the recommendations of the Committee in the course of the year. This Bill might be allowed to run for a couple of years. [HON MEMBERS: "No, no."] I see the sort of contingency hon. Members are anticipating.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must say at once that to pass this Bill, making it a temporary measure, would not be a satisfactory solution. My suggestion was that the whole question should be kept open for the inquiry, and that you should have an emergency measure to deal with the particular emergency of the moment. The right hon. Gentleman has made quite a different suggestion, and I could not be a part to his alternative.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure that there is much difference of opinion between us. All I want is to deal with the emergency of the moment. The right hon. Gentleman prefers to make the Bill for the year, and I should be ready, on behalf of the Government, to agree to that, and we might set up a Committee to report on the whole problem. I am afraid I could not go beyond that. I think in that way I am meeting the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, but I do not think the setting up of a Select Committee would be of any use at all. The hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras said he was prepared not to move these Amendments provided hon. Members on this side did not move Amendments further restricting the Bills in directions he did not wish to go, and I think there is a good deal to be said for that course. I have indicated my views. I do not want to limit the possibilities of debate in Committee, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman undertakes not to press his Amendments at this stage perhaps my hon. Friend behind me will not press his Amendment, so that the Committee will be free to discuss this matter.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I understand, Mr. Whitley, that you have called upon me to move my Amendment?
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: If the hon. and learned Member moves his Amendment the effect will be to largely curtail the debate of the general question. I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to do that, because there are others who are desirous of continuing the debate on the general question.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to move his Amendment if he desires to do so.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I will gladly give way to my hon. and learned Friend the
  896
  Member for North-East Cork by the consent of the Committee, because I do not wish to take any unreasonable course.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington raises the exact point at issue.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: In the suggestion which my hon. Friend is adopting, am I to understand that we are to amend this Resolution before it goes to the Select Committee? I understood from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his idea was simply to pass a temporary Bill dealing with the collection of the Income Tax this year. This Resolution as now on the Paper would go upstairs to a Select Committee, and there be thoroughly thrashed out and discussed before it comes down again to this House for its final confirmation. If we are going to take the various Amendments and settle them here on the floor of the House before the Resolution goes upstairs to a Select Committee, will not that prejudice the decision of the Select Committee as to the actual terms of the Resolution?
  The CHAIRMAN: It would not be the Resolution, but the Bill after its Second Reading that would go to the Select Committee. It would, of course, be possible, if it were the desire of the House on this Resolution, to found a more limited Bill than is indicated in the Resolution itself, a Bill either limited to certain classes of taxes or limited as to the time of its operation. There is nothing in this Resolution to prevent that being done at a later stage.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask whether it would be in order on this Resolution to bring in two Bills, one of a temporary character dealing with the Income Tax or the Tea Duty alone for the current financial year wad the other of a general character?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not recollect having been asked that question before, but at first sight I should think it could be done. I should think two Bills, one temporary and one of a permanent character, which might be sent upstairs, might be founded on the same Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. I am told there is a precedent for that being done.
  Viscount WOLMER: A point has occurred to me which has not been dealt

  897
  with before. I understand this Resolution will apply to Ireland as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom, and I should like to ask whether, in the event of the Home Rule Bill passing, we should not be putting Ireland in the position of having the money of Irishmen voted away by this House in which Ireland would not receive the same amount of representation as the other parts of the United Kingdom? That is a point of real importance, and I should have thought the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) would have made it. I should be very grateful if the Government would deal with it.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has suggested that it might be possible to introduce two Bills, one dealing with the temporary emergency and the other dealing with the other taxes. I understand that it would be possible to introduce two Bills on the basis of one Resolution.
  The CHAIRMAN: Of course, I could not give a definite answer until I saw the Bill.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and, if that were possible, a Bill dealing with the temporary taxes might be introduced at once, and the other Bill, dealing with the rest, might be sent upstairs to a Committee. That would deal with the temporary emergency, and enable the Select Committee to consider the whole matter.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Might I suggest that the first part of my Noble Friend's suggestion should be accepted, and that if we give the right hon. Gentleman his Bill dealing with the temporary emergency he should refer the whole question of what is best to be done to a Select Committee.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Are we to understand that the Bill dealing with the temporary taxes will be for this year only?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, this is an alternative proposal; it is that a Bill should go through dealing with the temporary taxes.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: How long will it last?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first suggestion I made was for a temporary Bill dealing with the whole problem. An
  898
  alternative suggestion has been made, based upon the point of Order raised by the Noble Lord, that there should be two Bills, one dealing with the temporary emergency, and another Bill, which should be referred to a Select Committee, dealing with the whole problem.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When the right hon. Gentleman says "One Bill dealing with the temporary emergency," does he mean a Bill dealing with the present emergency and limited to the present emergency, or, in other words, limited to the reimposition or imposition of the Income Tax and Tea Duty this year; or does he mean a Bill limited to those two taxes, but not limited in point of time? Does he mean that it shall be applicable to other years as well?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure whether I understand the question of the right hon. Gentleman. I mean a Bill dealing with the emergency as far as the Income Tax and the Tea Duty are concerned. There are not many years when a Government gets the Budget through before 1st July, though I quite admit most Budgets have been got through before the end of July. If it were confined to that, I should be quite willing to accept this suggestion.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can quite see that there is a real reason for a temporary measure to deal with the temporary emergency which exists in this year, but the Bill to deal with that temporary emergency should only deal with those taxes in this year, and should go no further. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he calls it dealing with a temporary emergency, wants to deal with the existing emergency not merely in this year, but in all years, and leave other questions outside the present emergency to be dealt with by the other Bill. I do not think that is a good offer; I do not know whether my hon. Friends here or whether hon. Gentlemen there are very much in favour of the suggestion I made, but the utmost to which I could go would be to agree that you should have a temporary Bill dealing with the collection of the Income Tax and the Tea Duty this year, and that would have to be accompanied by a guarantee from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would not make use of it to postpone the introduction of the Budget beyond the normal time.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: A double appeal has been made. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) has said that he will postpone his Amendment if the Amendments generally, and mine in particular, are postponed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment. I am in another difficulty. I do not quite know whether my Amendment has been accepted. If my Amendment has been accepted, I should not, of course, move it in any case. If it is the general understanding that Amendments shall be dropped on this occasion, without any prejudice of course, I will conform to the general understanding and not move my Amendment, but I should like to know whether such an understanding is accepted generally.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move after the word "That," to insert the words "except in relation to the imposition or renewal of Income Tax."
  My Amendment will get rid of a good many difficulties with which the Committee at present seem to be faced. A good number of speakers on both sides of the House have treated, and rightly treated, this question as not a party one. It is not a party question because it is a very high constitutional question, and just as much as it is removed from party so it becomes more important from the constitutional point of view. I share all the misgivings and doubts which have been expressed on both sides of the House as to the danger of placing so great a power in the hands of any Government of the day as is contemplated by this Resolution. One of my hon. Friends expressed a difficulty he has when there is apparently art agreement between the two Front Benches. I share that misgiving, but it is increased tenfold when I find that the agreement between the two Front Benches is founded upon what might be called the Departmental view. If there is one thing I distrust it is the Departmental view. A Department ought to have no view; they ought to serve their country and the purpose for which they are employed, and they ought not to have any view as opposed to that of the House of Commons itself. I am surprised at the belief which exists on both sides of the House that any sort of remedy of this kind is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) seems to think that a remedy of this kind is necessary, and the Chan-
  900
  cellor of the Exchequer puts this forward as essential in this year. Anyone who knows anything about the Income Tax knows that this difficulty has occurred over and over again, and that it has been met by simpler means than these. There was a provision inserted in the Bill of 1884 that the Income Tax which had been paid prior to the passing of the Act should be charged upon the subsequent payment of dividends during the rest of the year, and, if the Government, without any short Bill or anything of the sort, would take Clause 7 out of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1884 into their Bill this year, the difficulty would be in part and almost in whole got over. It would give a right to the banks to make the deduction. The collection of Income Tax ought to have taken place in respect of dividends which have fallen due and which will have been paid before this particular Act in this year has been passed, and it would give the banks power, under this Section, to deduct dividends in respect of subsequent payments. Thus almost all difficulty is got over.
  That is an expedient which has been used many times before. Why it has not been put permanently on the Statute Book I do not know. But to come down and say it is necessary to pass this Resolution in order to enable the collection of Income Tax to be made is to forget what has happened in the past. It is to forget the expedient resorted to, an expedient which has proved sufficient to overcome difficulties that have been experienced before. I have made my Motion to eliminate Income Tax for a very particular reason. Hon. Members who have spoken have expressed their distrust of giving the Government so high a power as is contained in this Resolution or would be contained in a Bill founded on it. I agree, and one way of preventing that very great power being placed in the hands of the Government is to tie down the Government of the day to passing their Bill by a certain date. I think it was until the year 1861 the practice to put each separate tax in a separate Bill, and the only reason why we have all the taxes put into one Bill is because the House of Lords, in the year 1860, threw out a separate Bill which provided for the repeal of the Paper Duty. Subsequently, in 1861 Mr. Gladstone put all his taxes in one Bill for the purpose of preventing the House of Lords having any power to throw out individual Bills, and he put upon them the grave task, as Lord Morley says, in his

  901
  "Life of Mr. Gladstone," "the almost impossible task of throwing out the whole taxation of the year." It was supposed that this House had safeguarded its powers over finance by this stratagem of putting all the taxes into one Bill. That need has passed away owing to recent legislation, and it is quite easy for us to revert to the system of having separate Bills for separate taxes.
  The only merit which the previous practice had, namely, to try and safeguard the privileges of this House, having passed away, it would be convenient to be able to pass your taxes by having them put separately into separate Bills. That is another expedient which might be adopted at the present time. It would be quite easy to get the Income Tax Act passed in a very few days. Let me give an illustration of what has been done in the past. I have taken the dates at which Income Tax Acts were passed. I am going back some distance in doing this. But, in 1845, the Income Tax Act was passed on 5th April, and it was passed for three years. In 1848 it was passed on 13th April, again for a period of three years. In 1852 the Act was obtained on 28th May, and in 1860 it was passed on 3rd April. Let me assume that the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that would be that that is the history of old generations which have passed away. I will come down to modern finance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the practice of relying upon Resolution only has been the practice for two generations. I am content to go back but one generation. I am right in saying, I suppose, that a generation may he taken to mean thirty-three years. Let us see what was done in 1880. The whole of the finances of that year were passed and the Royal Assent was given on the 24th March. So you have had, at the very commencement of this generation, a Customs and Inland Revenue Act passed on the 24th March, 1880, and you have in that given the Grant of Income Tax for the year "as from the 6th April thereafter." If you follow that precedent, there is no reason why you should not tie the Government down to pass its Income Tax Act, as was actually done in the year 1880, by the end of March, or certainly in the first few days of April.
  Let me take another Bill, still in this generation. I come to the year 1900. This is a non-party question, and I do not know whether the merit of the early date at which the Customs and Inland Revenue
  902
  Act was then passed was due to the Government of the day or to the vigilance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was then in Opposition. Whatever the reason, however, it is the fact that in the year 1900 the Customs and Inland Revenue Act received the Royal Assent on the 9th April. For my part I fail to see why you should want to establish a new practice making a deep inroad into our liberties and preventing a great deal of the so-called control of this House over the finances of the year, when, if you examine what has been the practice in the past, there is no case made out for any such drastic remedy at all. If you will adopt the original plan of a single Bill for a single tax, if you will once more go back to the system of finance as the first duty of this House, and see that your Bill is introduced early in April or at the end of March, and see to it that it is passed, as was done in the years I have mentioned, you will have no difficulty whatever, and the Resolution and the Bill founded on it will become unnecessary. The truth is that this supposed convenience and inconvenience which has been revealed by the act of Mr. Bowles does not really exist. It is because of the laxity of the present Government that the matter has got so out of hand.
  I may take some other modern cases. Let me take the year 1893. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act of that year was passed by 12th May. In 1895 it was passed by 30th May, and in 1903 by 30th June. In most cases, with regard to Income Tax, it was passed before the larger dividends of the year fell due. But when you see that Bills for the purpose of collecting the Income Tax have been passed and can be passed early in April, is it true to say there is an established practice which has lasted for more than two generations which creates this difficulty, and is it fair to come down to the House and require this very drastic remedy from us at the present time. I contend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to make out his case, particularly with regard to Income Tax, and that this Committee ought to pause a very long time before, for the purpose of meeting a supposed difficulty, they give so much as they would do if they passed this Resolution and the Bill founded upon it. Why suggest that such a remedy is necessary when there are many other remedies available? Two years ago this very difficulty was before the House. In the year 1911 a Clause was

  903
  slipped into the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill which was in these terms:—
  "Any charge or deduction for Income Tax made previously to the passing of the Act imposing the tax shall be taken to be a legal charge or deduction, so far as it does not exceed the charge or deduction which might have been made if the Act imposing the tax had been in force."
  That was put into the Bill.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): It was not inserted in the Act.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I moved its deletion. There was a somewhat interesting Debate, and, ultimately, the Government realised the difficulty of including any such provision which enabled these deductions to be made, even under the Resolution of this House. The Solicitor-General withdrew the Clause, saying that he would endeavour to meet the case by bringing up a more suitable one upon Report, but he found himself unable to do that, and the Clause was consequently deleted from the Bill and does not appear in the Act. In 1911 this House had declared, really with the consent of both Front Benches, that this method of making deductions for Income Tax when you have not passed your Bill was a method that ought not to be adopted. Nothing has happened since to make that a wise provision. What has happened is that the Government of the day have delayed getting the Act passed. Last year it was in August; in the previous year it was in December. If the Government are determined to pass a Resolution of this character, which is wholly unnecessary, a reversion to the principle of putting a single tax into a single Bill, and the plan of bringing forward your Bill early in the year, would quite meet the case. If you do not do that, and if it is said you want a Resolution and Act passed such as is suggested by this Resolution, very well, you need not do it with regard to Income Tax. You can have a remedy for this year based on Clause 7 of the Act of 1884. You might lose a little revenue, but not much, and you will have avoided the great misfortune, as hon. Members on both sides agree, of having given such great powers to the Executive Government of the day. You can do that for the present year. If you will look back to the system hitherto pursued with regard to Income Tax, then, in relation to future years,
  904
  there is no reason why you should not either pass the Bill at the proper time or adopt the method embodied in Section 7 of the Act of 1884.
  I claim two merits for my Amendment. One is that you keep the Income Tax within the power and entirely under the control of this House. You practically compel the Executive Government of the day to put it in a single Bill and pass it within a limited time. It may be said it is inconvenient to tie the Government down to a particular day in matters of finance. But they are already tied down; they have to get their Consolidated Fund Act by the 31st March, and there is no reason why you should not compel them to pass an Income Tax Act by the 5th or 6th April. It would be a far better thing that they should be so compelled, as it would give this House some control over them. For my part, I am very reluctant to release them from it, but, having regard to the fact that these opportunities and reasonable alternatives to the present scheme exist, I say that the Resolution now before the Committee is conceived on far too wide lines. It would, I submit, be a very reasonable proposition to eliminate the Income Tax and force the Government of the day to resort to those expedients which I have indicated—which have existed and do exist, and which render it unnecessary for the Government to take the very full powers desired in this present Resolution. On these grounds I beg to move my Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The hon. and learned Gentleman has moved in terms of moderation an Amendment on lines which follow the precedent of the Statute of 1884, and also going back to the years 1860–61, when the practice of setting up the Budget in one Bill, instead of in a series of single Bills, originated in the well-known period with which Mr. Gladstone's name is so closely associated. The view the hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the Committee is that it is not necessary that we should have recourse to any such Resolution for the purpose of securing the due collection of the Income Tax. Nobody knows better than he that no one suggests that it is necessary to have a Resolution of this kind in order to collect Income Tax during the next ensuing Income Tax year. The whole object of this Resolution and of the proposals put forward by the Government is to prevent the leakage which would other-

  905
  wise occur in consequence of the Government not being able to enforce collection of Income Tax in a continuous period, that is to say, from the end of this Income Tax year and continuing until the beginning of the next. In other words, say your Income Tax will end on 5th April, you want collection to start at once in a new Income Tax year, so that any moneys which come into the hands of bankers, brokers, or agents may be dealt with by them in the ordinary way, namely, that they may deduct from the amount they have to pay to their customers the Income Tax which is payable, and in that way ensure the collection by the Government of the Income Tax upon these coupons or dividends. That is the practice upon which our system of Income Tax collection is based. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and as Mr. Gibson Bowles, who has made a very close study of this question, has stated, and I believe rightly, by far the largest proportion of our Income Tax is collected by deduction at the source, therefore we are dealing with a vital part of our revenue from Income Tax. The view the Government takes is that it is essential that you should have a continuous practice of deducting at the source, in order that you may get into the coffers of the Exchequer the amount which is properly payable to them. If we have recourse to the alternative proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the result, I agree, would be that we should be able to recover Income Tax in the second quarter that we did not get by a deduction at the source in the first quarter, but that would only be a partial remedy. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not suggest that it would be a complete remedy. We do not want a partial remedy but a complete remedy, and we want to take care that no part of this Income Tax can escape and that there should be no leakage, consequently, when we propose a Resolution of this sort, what we are trying to provide is that all the money which should properly come to the Exchequer shall come to it by means of deduction at the source. I do not think we should obtain any advantage at all by having recourse to the precedent adopted in 1884, which was only a partial remedy.
  Mr. POLLOCK: It prevents your difficulty from arising.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is only a partial remedy. I understand the hon. and
  906
  learned Member puts forward the proposition to deal with the difficulty created by an Income Tax not having been imposed for the ensuing year continuously. He suggests it as a partial remedy. Our answer is, first, that a partial remedy is no good, because we want to prevent any leakage; and, secondly, because we have to deal with other taxes besides Income Tax which the remedy would not affect. The hon. and learned Gentleman says why not go back to the period when you had single Bills and each tax was dealt with in a separate measure. That is rather a novel suggestion. I thought it was agreed that it was very much better, having regard to the congestion there always is in this House, that we should not have separate Bills, but that one Bill should contain the finance for the year. That has been our practice. I cannot see why we should have recourse to the old practice which was abandoned in 1861. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we should do it because, if we did, we should not require to stereotype the practice which has prevailed for so many years. That would mean that you would have to introduce a number of Bills instead of one Bill. You would not be any further forward. You would have to have Resolutions for each Bill, and you would have to have them reported to the House. You would have to have the Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of each Bill. The result would be that, if you had to deal with four or five taxes which were to be imposed, you would have all these different stages for each of these different Bills instead of taking them all, as we do now, in one measure. I cannot see the advantage of it. The argument the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward was that we should not have to have recourse in any way to the practice which has existed for so many years, which we are attempting now to stereotype, and to which we are giving statutory effect.
  I do not want to argue this matter again because it has been discussed quite long enough this afternoon, but I would venture to impress upon the Committee that when it is said that what we are doing is to impose a very drastic remedy, and that we are seeking from this Committee revolutionary powers, that is not really the true state of facts. Everyone who has studied the question knows, and no one knows better than the hon. and learned Member, that in point of fact what we are

  907
  doing is merely to say that what we have been doing for a number of years—I do not say by one Government more than another, but what every Government has done for a series of years—and what has been found quite convenient to the public, shall now continue. It has hitherto existed upon what I would call usage or custom. It is a practice which has grown up, to which the public has assented for a period of at least sixty years. The Courts now say that that practice has no validity. The consequence is that we are faced with the position that as the Income Tax year comes to an end we have not the power, unless we pass a Resolution of this kind—I am dealing with the Amendment for the moment—to go on collecting Income Tax, and unless we give statutory effect to what has been loosely called custom or usage. We are simply saying that what we thought to be the law shall now be declared to be the law. We are not moving one step beyond that. Every lawyer will agree with that. Perhaps it is putting it too high to say that we all thought that was the law, because doubt has been expressed with regard to it, but it is what we have all recognised as a practice for Sixty years. That is all that we ask the House of Commons to legalise.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Act of 1862 he will see that the House recognising that the Resolutions have no validity, took special powers to collect Income Tax because there was no power to collect it under a Resolution. That was enshrined in the Statute. He must not suggest that we all thought a Resolution had any legal power, because most of us knew that it had no legal power.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: What we all recognise—and certainly every Government has recognised for the last sixty years—is that there has been a practice which has never been tested in a Court of Law. When tested it is found not to be able to stand the test of the Courts of Law. The whole position now is that we say it is necessary that we should have that power still and that we shall pass this Resolution so that we may introduce a Bill. I do not want to travel over the whole ground. It will be impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment, because it is essential for the present that we should have these powers.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment for one or two clear and obvious reasons. It may quite well be, from the point of view of Customs and Excise, that certain powers should be needed and particularly needed with regard to new taxation. Having some experience of those matters I am not wholly in agreement with some hon. Members on my own side with regard to the necessity for such powers. I would like to put before the Attorney-General the point that the necessity which he has alleged may apply to a certain extent to Customs and Excise, but that his case is of the weakest, if it exists at all, with regard to Income Tax. In the first place, he almost scouted the idea of going back to the practice of having two separate Bills—which was the custom when Mr. Gladstone introduced the alteration of including all the financial proposals for the year in one Bill—and of having the Income Tax dealt with in a separate Bill. The whole of the reasons which induced Mr. Gladstone to bring that custom into effect have now ceased to exist. When the reasons cease to exist, the objection to going back to the original practice also vanishes. It may well be that some longer time would then be taken in dealing separately with an Income Tax Act and other financial Acts. But the other reason which induced Mr. Gladstone to take the step he did has ceased to exist, therefore the force behind the contention of the Attorney-General loses its validity. Another point the Committee should bear in mind, if it is necessary to remedy the present situation, so as not to allow prejudice to the public revenue. The Attorney-General seemed to think that we were now only embodying in a Statute what was previously the unwritten practice or convention. He seemed to think that there is no difference between having an unwritten practice and convention, and having an Act of Parliament which embodies it, even as closely as possible, in written language. Having an unwritten convention of which the use is carefully and quite naturally guarded is quite different from having embodied in an Act of Parliament powers which will probably be pushed beyond the original spirit of the convention to the limit which the Act of Parliament allows. That I will leave for the moment, because it is one of the chief reasons for the Amendment in my name which follows. But if there is a change—and the whole of

  909
  this Debate has shown, not only the substantial character of the change, but the suspicion with which it is regarded, quite legitimately, by a large number of Members—surely that very fact is a reason, if ever there was one, for confining the change within the narrowest limits which are reasonable for giving adequate protection to the revenue! Just for that reason Income Tax is a proper subject to be left out of the present Resolution.
  I take the case of the present year, on which the Attorney-General laid stress. The present year is perhaps the most damaging to his case of any. So far as the present year is concerned, you can get hardly any help from this Resolution. If in the course of time it comes to be an Act, the mischief has already been done, thanks to the lateness of the Government in bringing the Resolution forward. Consequently, for the immediate case of this year, the proposal with regard to Income Tax is useless. With regard to future years, and as a permanent remedy, it is quite unnecessary. Just look at the actual case. It is perfectly possible to embody this Income Tax in a separate Act. Even if that is not thought desirable, it is also not only possible, but infinitely more desirable as a method of meeting the permanent situation to adopt the course which is proposed by the hon. Member (Mr. Cassel). It is a pure accident at present that the Income Tax year so nearly coincides with the financial year. Between the date when it was first imposed, in 1842, and 1854, the Income Tax year started three months or more later than the financial year, and, consequently the situation gave no difficulty whatsoever. Sooner than extend a practice which quite legitimately arouses so much suspicion, why not reverse what was a pure accident, and indeed a mistake, in altering the date of the financial year in 1854 without, at the same time, altering the date of the income Tax year? It is perfectly possible, it would be quite simple; it would involve no suspicion, no drastic change or anything of the kind if the Income Tax year were to run to 1st July, or, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer preferred it, to the beginning of August. At least, it is a perfectly easy method of meeting the permanent difficulty, and it does not involve all the changes and all the suspicions which the action a the Government has created at present.
  910
  I suggest just one further consideration to the Committee. We have been told this afternoon that the Government have been studiously moderate in the spirit in which the Resolution is put forward. It is perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was studiously moderate, but, after all, we have to look at the facts as apart from the words in which it was introduced. What have been the actual facts with regard to the Government's action? In the first place, an offer was made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) not many minutes ago. The Chancellor was unable then to accept a perfectly moderate proposal simply designed in the interests of safeguarding the revenue, and meeting a difficult situation. As that proposal was refused it naturally has not diminished the suspicion with which the whole Resolution is regarded. In the second place, if the Government wish us to view this matter with equanimity, again why delay the present proposal until after the beginning of the present income Tax year? I could well imagine that if the Government wished to carry conviction as to the spirit in which these proposals were put forward and the spirit in which action would subsequently be taken, they would have been all the more scrupulous in bringing their Resolution forward at a much earlier date. We could then have said the action of the Government has been even more scrupulous than their words, and, consequently, we should be more likely to accept the proposal as it stands as a whole. It is for these reasons that, in the first place, it is useless with regard to the present, and it is unnecessary as a permanent solution, that I think the Amendment ought without doubt to be accented.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure that I followed the hon Gentleman's suggestion. I understood it to be that you should deal with the Income Tax, and I think he said the Tea Duty, as a temporary measure.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I suggested that it might be possible, even as a permanent solution if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished, to deal with the Income Tax each year, if need be in a separate Act. A much more preferable solution would be to assimilate the dates of the Income Tax to the present Tea Duty. The end of the Income Tax year would not then coincide with the financial year,

  911
  but would end two or three months or even more after the present financial year ends.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand now the hon. Member does not make any suggestion for dealing with a temporary emergency before the Bill is introduced. My first impression was that we suggested there should be a temporary emergency Bill, and that you should extend the period for temporary taxes. I understand he did not make the first suggestion.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The suggestion we have made really is that you should apply the powers contained in Section 7 of the Act of 1884 to the payment of dividends.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it was I who was bold enough to make the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman about the temporary difficulties in which the Government undoubtedly are. The suggestion I made was that there should be a temporary Bill just for the purpose of Income Tax, and I suggest it that a temporary Bill could pass through Parliament a great deal easier and quicker than this Resolution and the Bill founded upon it. This Bill would be more complicated than a temporary measure for the purpose of Income Tax would be. Then I suggested, of course without any authority from my leaders, that the whole difficulty should be referred to a Select Committee in order to find a way out. I am not desirous of obstructing the right hon. Gentleman in his collection of taxes. My objection is to the proposal to give any Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means statutory force. That is the real objection which I feel to the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, that we are making, for the first time in the course of history, a mere Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means of exactly the same force as an Act of Parliament. One can imagine the length to which that doctrine could go if it were once adopted with regard to finance. Finance is, of course, perhaps the most important of all the questions with which this House has to deal, and I can well imagine a Minister in a few years time proposing a Resolution and Bill which will enable the House of Commons by itself, without the assent of any Second Chamber whatever, or of the Crown, to pass a Resolution on some subject other than finance, and giving it statutory power and authority. It is only going one
  912
  step further than the Resolution and the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to found upon it. With regard to the argument of the Attorney-General, a further point arises. I have been reading Gladstone's life, where a large portion of this question is dealt with, and the reason why Mr. Gladstone altered the proposal was not because of the congestion of measures in the House, as the Attorney-General suggested.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSdissented.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman said Mr. Gladstone had altered it, and went on immediately afterwards to refer to the congestion and the difficulty of passing numerous Bills through the House on the question of finance.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: At the present time.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: At the present time. He did not say it, but he almost suggested that the two things were combined. If he did not mean it, I think it is right that the Committee should know and realise that Mr. Gladstone's proposals were simply and solely on account of the House of Lords having rejected one particular portion of a particular Finance Bill in 1860.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I thought that what happened in 1860 and 1861 was so well known—what Mr. Gladstone did and why he did it—that I did not refer to it.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not at all sure that the whole of it is quite so well known to all of us as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. At all events, I think he would have been one of the very last men in the House to assent to the Resolution. The whole of his life and the whole of his speeches on finance were devoted to emphasising the control of the House of Commons as a democratic Assembly over, not merely the House of Lords, but the Executive itself in all questions relating to finance. He presented a very remarkable Cabinet memorandum.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we in order in discussing the whole of the Resolution on this Amendment, or only the particular point raised by the Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The proposal is to exempt from the particular provisions of are Resolution a particular tax—the Income Tax—and I submit that in order

  913
  to realise why we should omit a particular tax from the Resolution we have, of course, to submit what the effect of carrying the Resolution would be with regard to that particular tax.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Though the hon. Member was arguing in general terms, I understood him to be directing his arguments to the specific point raised by the Amendment. I did not understand him to be going beyond that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: He has never mentioned, the Income Tax yet.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is open to me to say in every alternate sentence "this remark refers to the Income Tax," but I am dealing with an Income Tax Amendment, and I have thought hon. Members opposite might have sufficient reliance upon the fact that the arguments I am addressing to the Committee are supposed, at all events, to be dealing with the Income Tax. The second argument used by the Attorney-General was that custom for sixty years had enabled the Income Tax to be collected. That is perfectly true. But while for years and years a subject will go on allowing taxation to be deducted or taken from them without any actual Act of Parliament, knowing that in due course an Act of Parliament will be passed, it is desirable to preserve the right of the subject so that at any particular moment he may, if he feels aggrieved, object to the action of the Executive. Over and over again we find the Executive trying to get the better of the subject, and the subject is entitled, though he may have waived his rights for year after year, to maintain those rights, particularly when the Executive goes still further, as it does to-day, and asks to convert this loose custom, which is not binding on anybody, into an Act of Parliament. A document which was presented to Parliament within the last few days has not been referred to in the course of the Debate. It deals entirely with the question of Income Tax. I venture to suggest that the difficulty with regard to Income Tax is not nearly so great as we have been led to suppose. It was part of the argument of my hon. and learned Friend that the necessity for bringing forward a Bill for the purpose of dealing with the Income Tax difficulty is not nearly so great as has been suggested. The document to which I refer is an official letter issued by the Board of Inland Revenue to bankers,
  914
  brokers, and all whom it may concern, dealing with the collection of Income Tax at the present moment. There appear to be six items of Income Tax in regard to which there might be some difficult at the present juncture. The first is under the head (a), dividends and interest from the public funds, payable after 6th April. The Attorney-General said 5th April, but I take it that the proper date is 6th April. Income Tax payers will have received all their dividends from public funds before to-day. They are nearly all payable on 5th April, and therefore in respect of the whole of that class the difficulty can be swept away before 5th April. In regard to dividends and interest on foreign and Colonial securities, and dividends on stocks of local authorities, I agree that there is a difficulty. The Board of Inland Revenue put it perfectly clearly by stating that unless the payees consent to have deductions made the tax will have to be collected afterwards. These are the only two items where there is any difficulty so far as I can see. Then under heading (f), public companies in the United Kingdom, there is no difficulty for the Government at all. If the Board of Inland Revenue are right—they must be right, otherwise they would not have issued this remarkable statement—there is no difficulty under that head. In regard to head (c), the difficulty is met by Section 10 of the Inland Revenue Act of 1864, the tax being payable at the rate, or a proportionate amount, of Income Tax charged during the period through which the payments were accruing. You have to take the period in which they were accruing, and therefore there is no difficulty with regard to this head.
  Unless the Government are prepared to say, "We are going as a regular thing to postpone our Budget and the Finance Bill right through to the end of the year," the difficulty in future should not arise. I am going to assume that the bad practice has been dropped altogether, and that we will have the Finance Bill in the first quarter of the financial year—certainly early in April. The Government would get their Resolution, and there would be no reason why the Income Tax should not be imposed by the Finance Act long before 6th July. As to ground rents, there is no difficulty. Anybody receiving ground rents is entitled to deduct Income Tax.
  Mr. PRINGLE: In Scotland they are all paid in May.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not so conversant with the law in Scotland as the hon. Member is. If they are paid in May, does he mean that they accrue during May?
  Mr. PRINGLE: They are payable half-yearly.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: A great many accrue long before 5th April. In regard to payments under (f), no difficulty is likely to arise. That is the statement of the Board of Inland Revenue itself, and I venture to say that too much has been made of the difficulty with regard to Income Tax. I, for one, will vote to exempt from the scope of the Resolution Income Tax, which is one of the great taxes that press very heavily on the subject. I do not want the House of Commons in Committee of Ways and Means to have the right, without any appeal to the House of Commons, in its more sober mood, if I may say so, to pass a simple Resolution on the Motion of the Government, who may come down and propose it without notice. I presume they will put it on the Agenda the day before, but I am not at all certain whether, under the provisions of the Resolution, it would not be possible to start any point without notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might get up and say, "Mr. Whitley, I beg to move that the Income Tax for the current year be two shillings in the pound." We know what would happen. The obedient majority would come in from all quarters and vote for the Resolution, of which the subject had had no notice whatever. It would become practically an Act of Parliament. It would have the whole force of an Act of Parliament. I object to such a monstrous injustice, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will the Government not deal with the suggestion as to having the Income Tax year made to coincide with the financial year for national finance? It is a suggestion which is seriously made. It is not easy for a private Member to obtain information as to whether there may be some objection to that from the administrative point of view. So far as I am aware, it would be perfectly possible to make the Income Tax year coincide with the national financial year. May I point out that when the Income Tax was first introduced it ran through half of the financial year. At that time the financial year ended on 5th January. The history of the financial year is very interesting.
  916
  Down to 1793 it was 10th October, and it coincided with the old agricultural year. From 1793, until it was altered in 1854, the financial year ended on 5th January. In 1852, therefore, when the Income Tax was first introduced, the financial year ended on 5th January. So far as I can see there is really no objection to that course, for even now you do not when calculating t he profits of companies or individuals take it as from 5th April to 5th April; you take up to the last date upon which the taxpayer makes up his accounts, so that you may not interfere with the year for which Income Tax is being paid. Of course, supposing a very special emergency arose, in which you wanted to get the additional Income Tax during the three months elapsing before your new year began, you could deal with that. It would be only in a very special emergency. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that from the 5th April to the 5th April is a mere accident. The fact that it coincided so nearly with the close of our financial year is not the result of design, but the result of accident. Why should we not get over the whole difficulty so far as Income Tax is concerned by merely making that alteration?
  I do not quite agree with some of the observations of my hon Friend as to there being no difficulty during April, because I have ascertained that on the 18th of April the interest on £3,000,000 Treasury Bonds falls due, and it will be very interesting to know what the Treasury is going to do with regard to that. On the 12th April the interest on £3,000,000 of Three and a half per Cent. India Stock falls due, and on the 15th April the interest on £500,000 Bradford Corporation Stock, close on £10,000,000 Cape of Good Hope Stock, £1,500,000 Hong Kong Three and a half per Cent. Inscribed Stock, and so on, falls due. On the 1st May the interest on £13,000,000 Russian Five per Cent. Loan falls due, and there is not only the question of interest on these securities, but there is a question for ourselves. What instructions have been given to the Paymaster-General? Is he going to receive the consent of every person to whom he has to pay salary in the meantime before he can deduct Income Tax? That is the position which exists as regards temporary purposes, and that is simply the fault of the Government, and they ought to suffer for it. But so far as the permanent difficulty is concerned, it can be met absolutely by altering the Income Tax year, and

  917
  making it, if you like, from the 1st June to the 1st June, or from the 1st July to the 1st July. Even if you had it from the end of April to the end of April you would have to have a separate Act, if you wanted it so near the financial year. But if you made it run from the 1st July to the 1st July you need not have a separate Act. I hope that the Government will give some indication of what their view is.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is not so easy as it would appear to the hon. and learned Member to change the Income Tax year. It is immaterial to discuss whether it was by design or by accident that the year ends on 5th April. It is embedded deep in our Income Tax collection. If we want to change it, obviously either the revenue or the subject must necessarily suffer. If you want the year to end, say, on the 30th June, you have got to take into account that all Income Tax has to be collected under Schedule D on a basis for three years. If you are going to collect in this particular year only up to the 30th June, it must affect the revenue if you collect it for the shorter period, and it must affect the subject if you collect it for the longer period. It is a much more difficult thing than the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. I agree that it is worth considering to see whether by any possibility we can meet it, but it is much more difficult than he has any conception of.
  Mr. POLLOCK: The observations of the Attorney-General should not be allowed to pass without an answer. Schedule D is based on an average of three years. Whether you take it from one period of the year to another period, the subject will not suffer. Whether you make the average date from 1st July or 1st January, in all cases it is a three years' average. What the Attorney-General would lead us to believe is that it would take us over a period of two
  years and nine months, when the State would suffer, or a period of three years and three months, when the subject would suffer. To hear the Attorney-General make a case of that sort and leave out the word "average" is to invite retort from this side of the House, and an explanation to the right hon. Gentleman that an average for whatever period it is taken will work on a perfect system between the State and the subject, whether you start from 1st July or 1st April…
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: Nobody suggests the contrary.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Under this Resolution it does not seem to me that it is necessary to pass an Act at all. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if the Resolution goes through, whether it would not be perfectly possible that the subject should be taxed without any Act being passed? Under the Resolution the Act which is supposed to legalise the Resolution might be passed in the same Session, or a succeeding Session, or in a different Parliament. If the Resolution goes through the subject is taxed, and if, before the Act is passed, the Government go out of power, no Act having been passed legalising the Resolution, what remedy would the subject have? Under the Resolution there is nothing whatever about any Act being necessary eventually to legalise the Resolution.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: It is quite clear that the Resolution cannot have effect by itself; there must be a Bill to follow it. The very object of the Resolution is in order that you may have a Bill, and it is stated to be for a limited period, so that a Bill must be passed.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 209.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES.

  [8.34 p.m.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gretton, John

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Clyde, J. Avon.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Barnston, Harry

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Eyres-Mansell, B. M.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Bann, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Falle, B. G.

  Hewing, William Albert Samuel

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fell, Arthur

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Blair, Reginald

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Campion, W. R.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Lyttelton, Hon J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Pollock and Mr. Cassel.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Alden, Percy

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  O'Grady, James

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

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

  Armitage, Robert

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

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Malley, William

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hackett, J.

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hancock, John George

  O'Shee, James John

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hardie, J. Keir

  O Sullivan, Timothy

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Boland, John Pius

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brady, P. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hinds, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hodge, John

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hudson, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Robinson, Sidney

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rowlands, James

  Chancellor, H. G,

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Clynes, John R.

  Keating, Matthew

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

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Sheehy, David

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kelly, Edward

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Shortt, Edward

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  King, J.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crooks, William

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Snowden, Philip

  Crumley, Patrick

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Sutherland, John E.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Lundon, Thomas

  Thomas, J. H.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lynch, A. A.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Doris, W.

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Webb, H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Molloy, M.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Mooney, J. J.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Falconer, J.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Munro, R.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Field, William

  Neilson, Francis

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Norman, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Furness, Stephen

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) is not in order. The question should be raised on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I make my submission why I think my Amendment to insert the words, "notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill of Rights," ought to be allowed? I think it extremely important, when we are overruling the provision of a fundamental Statute, to make it perfectly plain on the face of the Resolution, in fact, I think it is almost a legal necessity. The learned judge who dealt with the recent case in his judgment referred to the Bill of Rights which finally settled that there could be no taxation in this country except under the authority of an Act of Parliament; and he added that there was this further difficulty that if the legislalation was intended, notwithstanding the Bill of Rights, to enable the Crown to collect taxes on the authority of the Committee of Ways and Means, it would almost certainly express it, and not leave the matter to mere implication, to be drawn from general words. I submit, Sir, that it is desirable, even at the earliest stage, to make clear what we do in regard to a fundamental Statute. It is also desirable for the sake of the country.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: On a point of Order, Sir. Is it not well known that when the Chairman gives his decision no Member can argue upon it? We are now having a legal argument from the hon. Gentleman after you have decided the point.
  Mr. CASSEL: I should refrain from continuing my argument when the Chairman interrupts me. The reason why I suggest that my Amendment is not out of order is that it was important to call attention to the fact in the Resolution how we deal with a fundamental Statute.
  Mr. POLLOCK: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is possible for the House of Commons to pass a Resolution which is directly opposed to an existing Statute unless attention has been specifically called to it?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to both hon. and learned Members for the way they have put their points to me, but I see no reason for altering my
  922
  decision. I think this is a matter which should probably be raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that it is not at all necessary or desirable at this stage.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move, after the word "That," to insert the words "where a special Resolution is passed by the House of Commons that it is expedient, in order to safeguard the interests of the public revenue, to give temporary effect to any Resolution of this House for imposing taxation."
  I do not for a moment move this Amendment out of any hostility or any desire that the public revenue should not be adequately safeguarded. I move it at this stage because if it is considered now, and if the Government see no reason to assent to the principle, at any rate then I think it would modify the form of the Bill that would be founded upon the Resolution as a whole, and so it is better to draw attention to the point now than afterwards. The whole object of the Amendment is quite clear. Without it, as the Resolution stands in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any subsequent taxing Resolution in Ways and Means will of ordinary course carry the force of law. Under the Amendment which I propose, every facility will be given to safeguarding the public revenue, but the exceptional character of the action will be emphasised, by the fact that a special Resolution of the House will be necessary for giving that statutory effect to the taxing Resolution in Ways and Means. I submit that the reasons for that are really overwhelming. As the Resolution stands it will affect automatically all taxes which are proposed. It will as it stands affect Customs and Excise both new and old, and such duties as may be varied. It affects Income Tax and Death Duties, and will affect stamps unless special and exceptional words are used to make an exception of the exception. In the first place, I would ask the Committee to notice how absolutely unnecessary it is to have the wording of the Resolution so wide or to give this force to all Financial Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means. With regard to Death Duties, it is absolutely unnecessary that we should have every Financial Resolution dealing with Death Duties having statutory effect at once. People throughout the country may be harassed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a tax-gatherer, but no one as yet is found ready to commit suicide in order to pay Death

  923
  Duties at a lower rate if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to increase them. If it is unnecessary with regard to Death Duties, it is absolutely harmful that a Financial Resolution in Ways and Means should take effect with regard to stamps. If there ever was a ticklish subject of taxation it is stamps. In almost every case the proposal that has been brought in with regard to varying the Stamp Duties has been altered, modified, or rescinded before the Bill has become an Act; but in the Resolution as it stands, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to modify it, a Resolution with regard to Stamp Duties would have a statutory effect at once.
  Then look at the other side of the question. It is now proposed to take out of the category a whole class of duties—new duties—when, if ever there was the need for giving statutory effect to a Financial Resolution it is with regard to some new duties. The difficulty with regard to Ways and Means Resolutions having statutory effect is thus very great, owing to the very fact that some people wish to except one kind of duty and some to except another or to insert another, which makes the whole range and scope of the Resolution one of great controversy, or, at any rate, great difficulty. Can that difficulty be avoided in any way? I submit that by the Amendment which I propose it can in many ways be avoided, and I will explain why. There is another real difficulty that arises which has already been mentioned this afternoon. Here you have got a Resolution which is to be the foundation of an Act making explicit in set words what has previously been an unwritten convention. The moment any convention unwritten is put into explicit words the nature of it really is altered. The fact that it is a departure, at any rate in the letter if not in the spirit, from the underlying principle of the Constitution, is emphasised by the fact that it is put into written words. Of old, if the Convention is unwritten, it is adapted automatically to the needs of the situation. The very fact that it is unwritten will snake anybody very chary of going beyond the actual needs of the situation. The moment the unwritten gives place to the written, so soon the departure from the Constitution will be not only in the letter, but in the spirit. At the present moment, therefore, particularly when the whole tendency is for the Executive Government to usurp more and more, it is all the wiser
  924
  to safeguard any such departure as securely as possible.
  It is no doubt necessary to have some measure of the kind proposed in the Resolution, but it is equally necessary, in the first place, that each occasion of its use should be most carefully safeguarded; and, in the second place, if we are departing now consciously and explicitly from the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and, indeed, from what underlies the whole taxation of the British Constitution, then the exceptional character of the action taken ought to be emphasised on each occasion on which the departure is made. By the Amendment which I propose the use will be safeguarded and the exceptional character will be emphasised. You will not be able to get each Amendment having the force of law as a matter of course, but before it has the force of law it will have to be reported to the House as a whole, and there will have to be a special provision by the House to give it statutory effect. Earlier this afternoon the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that he could not accept this. Amendment, but that he would try to introduce words to meet the difficulty. What he proposed was that in the words of each Resolution for the future which was to have statutory effect it should be so explicitly stated. I submit that that would really make no difference in practice at all. It would merely mean just a little drafting alteration in the wording of each Resolution brought in in Ways and Means, and the whole thing would become just a matter of course as before, and so the exceptional character of the use would not be emphasised for a single moment. In the next place he said that there would be a very great difficulty because, as the usage of the House stands, and, as I think he stated, the Standing Orders provided, if there is a Resolution in Ways and Means, it is never reported to the House upon the same night. As a matter of fact I believe that no Resolution in Ways and Means is, as the Chancellor said, reported to the House on the same night, but that is merely a matter of usage, and it is not without exception even as matters now stand. The only Standing Order dealing with the subject is Standing Order No. 71, which provides that where the House sets up a Committee of Ways and Means the matter to be considered shall not come before the consideration of that Committee until a future day. There is nothing whatsoever in the Standing Order providing that when

  925
  the matter has come before the Committee it shall not be reported to the House the same night. There are indeed cases in which the matter has been reported to the House the same night.
  Even if that were not so I submit that at the greatest it would be the alteration of a Standing Order, and in any case it is only a small departure from a usage set up by analogy to a Standing Order on a rather different matter. It is far better to have a slight departure in a matter of procedure than to extend a large innovation on the whole constitutional history of taxation to the length contemplated by this Resolution. For these reasons I submit the Amendment to the Committee. I think that if the use of this new power is safeguarded in the manner indicated the Committee will have more freedom in dealing with each tax which may be dealt with under it. It is principally the suspicion in regard to the exercise of the power by the Executive that would naturally prevent either the Committee or the House of Commons from granting this power to be used in a Resolution in Ways and Means. If, however, there is a special Resolution of the House as a whole, it will safeguard this proposal, emphasise its exceptional character, and thereby probably facilitate its acceptance by the Committee or the House. Lastly, the proposal in the Amendment is much more in accordance with precedent than the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The only precedent at all analogous to this case has already been quoted this afternoon in a different connection. It is Section 18 of the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, in which reference is made to any new duties of Customs which are or may be imposed by any Act of Parliament or by any Resolution of the House of Commons. It does not for a moment contemplate Resolutions in Ways and Means. It deals only with Resolutions of the House of Commons. Consequently, my Amendment follows precedent more closely, while, as I say, it would probably facilitate the subsequent acceptance of these Resolutions by the House of Commons.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I cannot help thinking that this subject would be better discussed when we were in Committee upon the Bill. It is a novel practice to discuss a matter of this character on an Amendment to a Resolution proposed in Committee of Ways and Means. Still,
  926
  the hon. Gentleman is certainly within his rights in proposing it. I rather gathered from him that what he was anxious to do was to put his views before the Committee, so that, his idea having been explained, it could be considered.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the Government were willing to accept my suggested Amendment, that would be one thing. But in order to avoid misconception, I may say that if the Government do not see their way to accept the Amendment, I shall probably have to press the matter to a Division.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The position of the Government is quite plain. In my view it is impossible to accept the principle, of the Amendment as it stands. I thought at first that there might be some possibility of an arrangement between us; but on hearing the speech of the hon. Gentleman I find that he places his reliance on the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means being reported to the Whole House. That introduces a great difficulty. If all that he desired was that a Resolution imposing or renewing taxation should, before it had statutory effect, be preceded by a Resolution declaring that it was expedient that it should have statutory effect, there would be no difficulty at all. The effect would be, at any rate, to safeguard the practice from becoming too stereotyped, inasmuch as the Committee would have to determine on each Resolution whether it was expedient that that particular Resolution should have statutory effect for the time being. Upon that I do not think there would be any insuperable difficulty; in fact, I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he was quite ready to accept such a suggestion. But when the proposal is plainly put by the hon Gentleman, it seems to me that it is impossible for us to accept it, unless he puts it in the form that I have indicated. If you are to have a report to the Whole House, it means that you cannot have your Resolution effective in the first instance, and the whole object of our proposal is that a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means shall be effective at once. Under the practice which obtained until the judgment in the Gibson Bowles case, and even at present—because Mr. Justice Parker said that that judgment did not affect Customs—if the House imposed a Customs Duty it does

  927
  it at once in Committee of Ways and Means, and that duty is levied without waiting for the Resolution to be reported to the Whole House. It has been explained how necessary it is that that should be done in order that there should not be any important forestallments. That really is the object of our Resolution, and the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would prevent it. It would destroy the precautions we are taking against forestalment. If he would put his proposal in the form that I have suggested I would be quite prepared to meet him in principle when we deal with the Bill. But I do not want the hon. Member to be under any misunderstanding. I shall oppose it if it is insisted upon as a Resolution of the Whole House. I hope, therefore, that he will see his way to modify his proposal.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: What does the Attorney-General mean when he says that he is willing to accept the principle of a special Resolution? Does he mean that in each case where a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means is to have statutory authority it is to be based on a special Resolution introduced for that purpose in each particular instance? If he means that, it would not carry us very much further, as it it appears to me. It would only mean that under the proposal the Government would introduce the Resolution in Ways and Means, and in order to get the desired result the Government would have to produce that Resolution in a specialised form. I think that is quite following what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think it is important that the scheme, as it standsx…
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not want to attribute any special meaning to the words here, "special Resolution," for I am not sure in what respect the words apply in that connection. Otherwise the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite correctly followed what I mean.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General, because we are not now talking from a party point of view. One wants to see what the intention and meaning really are. What I take it the right hon. Gentleman really means is this: Suppose you had an ordinary Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, it would not have statutory effect; and in order to have the statutory effect desired, you must move a Resolution in a special form
  928
  asking that it might have statutory effect. From my point of view, that appears to be an improvement.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I do not want to be misunderstood. I am only dealing with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I put the matter on wider grounds, and on these wider grounds I am only saying that the suggestion would be a distinct improvement. I think the Attorney-General is right in that. The Amendment undoubtedly goes a little beyond that, because the Amendment says, not that the Committee should deal with the special Resolution, but that the House should deal with it. Therefore you have a Report stage as well as a Committee stage. That appears to me to be a proper safeguard. Suppose you are dealing with a particular tax, owing to what has been said about the Treasury it is suggested that it is desirable to have statutory effect immediately: there is no reason why you might not follow the Committee stage by Report stage. If you are to have statutory authority, it should at least be the statutory authority of the House, as apart from the statutory authority given merely by a Committee of the House. There is a great difference in substance, to my mind, in what the House does, as a House, to what it does as a Committee. When we are dealing with the matter as a House we are dealing with it as a whole. We have the Speaker in the Chair. I think what the Attorney-General has indicated would be an improvement, but it does not go far enough.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I want to call the attention of the Committee to the difficulty that I understand the right hon. Gentleman has in meeting the proposition made by my hon. Friend. I see in the Manual of Procedure, to which we all refer, that in Section 242 (page 194), is laid down the Rule which is in the Attorney-General's mind, namely:—
  "When a Resolution passed by Committee of Ways and Means is reported to the House the consideration of the Resolution on Report must be set down for a future date."
  That is the difficulty that stands in the right hon. Gentleman's way, but he agreed, I think, with what my hon. Friend suggested a moment ago, dealing with this matter on broad grounds, that it would

  929
  be wise if we adopted some method of procedure such as indicated by the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Birmingham. If that be really the only difficulty—and we are dealing with this matter from a non-party point of view—which is here stated it is only a matter of altering our own Procedure or Standing Orders. There is a Committee going to deal with these matters, and this is a matter which might fairly be considered by them. There still remains the agreement of both sides of the House that it would be wise as a safeguard to introduce a method, either by substantive Resolution or else by the operation of the Resolution which is to have statutory effect in clear terms, that this particular Resolution should have this temporary statutory effect. If that is the view of both sides of the House, is it a sufficient answer to say, "Oh, well there is the practice as laid down in the Section against you, and we cannot meet it at all." What we are discussing is not a Bill, but a Resolution which, after all, is for the guidance of the draftsman of the Bill, to tell him the sort of Bill we want. The Attorney-General might say: I will undertake that some form of special Resolution is provided; that would meet what my right hon. Friend has moved, and it would safeguard the interests concerned.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The suggestion of the hon. Member is a very valuable one, and one we are quite prepared to adopt in the form I have indicated to him, but it is not quite the spirit which should animate us that we should attempt to make a bargain. The view that I have taken is that we should introduce some form of words which, allowing for the principle, will go some way at any rate to meet the hon. Member. Of course, if the hon. Member does not agree to the suggestion, it is open to him to withdraw his Amendment at this particular stage.
  Sir J. D. REES: There was one argument, which the Attorney-General, in dealing with the Amendment, made, I think, too much of, although I do not say it was not a good argument, and that is the extent to which the revenue may be affected if the system my hon. Friend advocates is introduced and the present system departed from. Take the case of tea with which I am most familiar. It is hardly correct to say that tea is only one crop as it comes to bearing at different seasons in different climates, yet you may say it is one, because it comes into the United Kingdom once a
  930
  year. It is difficult to see how notice of introduction one month, or two, or three months beforehand, can really lead to tea being poured wholesale into the United Kingdom. I should like to point out that this very result now happens owing to the uncertainty which exists, and in which the dealers remain up to the very last moment. It is only three years ago that owing to the fact that the trade then took it into their heads that there might be an increase that an immense amount of tea was brought into this country. So much fell into the Exchequer in the current year instead of the one in which the tea was expected that the Treasury was glutted with money, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had actually to refuse to take Income Tax. Many hon. Members will remember that at that time the Exchequer kept the Income Tax and Super-tax from being paid because there was too much money in hand. That was the very result which the Attorney-General wishes to avoid. It actually occurred under the present system. There was a glut of money in the Treasury. Tea was poured into the market before its time, the revenue of the current year was inflated, and the revenue of the coming year was depleted in the same proportion. I am speaking on a matter with which I happen to be particularly familiar. The actual thing which the Attorney-General deprecated happened under our existing system, and will happen again. I hope it will not happen in connection with tea this year, because I hardly think the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to increase the present duty upon tea, and it must be remembered unless there is a largely increased tax there is no necessity for forestalling; and that there is the increased cost of warehousing and many other charges. It is not so simple a matter as some seem to think to pour in large quantities in view of increase of the taxes.
  The tea trade has generally a fair idea of what is going to happen. I do not remember in regard to tea the trade making any particular mistake as to whether there was or was not to be an increase of the duty. I do not mean that they are in any way able to get at the sources of information. I have the profoundest confidence in the officials, but the traders put two and two together, they know the conditions of the public revenue and the necessity for an increase, and under the existing system they are fairly well able to forecast what is going to happen, and they do seem to

  931
  find it out. I therefore submit that the Attorney-General has made too much of the difficulty to which I referred. I am strongly in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend upon general grounds and because I see in this Resolution a further advance in the direction of taking things out of the hands of the House of Commons, against which I, for my part, will always vote, and therefore I shall vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Attorney-General objects that the course which I propose would vary our procedure at the present time.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: And the time it would take.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not want to argue that now. I only want to make it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman was at all events willing to meet my point, which is the need for emphasising the exceptional character of each Resolution which is to have this power. I do not, for my part, agree that this can be done in Committee of Ways and Means. I still think it ought to be done by a Resolution of the House, but if the Attorney-General will clearly understand that it is left open to us to take this point in Committee on the Bill, I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment now. I want to say that, because I hope we understand that I reserve the right to move it afterwards. We are anxious to meet him in a non-party spirit in what is rather a difficult situation, and from that point of view I am willing to withdraw it and to raise the matter on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CASSEL: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "House" ["the Committee of Ways and Means of this House"], to insert the words "and agreed to by this House."
  The paint of this Amendment is to some extent indirectly anticipated in the previous Amendment. The point I want to make is, that before the Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means can impose any tax it must be agreed to by the House of Commons. I think it would be a most extraordinary thing to put into a Statute that a Committee of Ways and Means, which is unknown to the law, and which is the result merely of our procedure and practice, should be able to effect the taxing of something. We
  932
  might alter our procedure and, instead of having a Committee of Ways and Means, we might have, as some foreign Parliaments have, a Budget Commission. So I think that to put into a Statute that a Committee of the House of Commons should be able to do a thing without the consent or knowledge of the House is asking too much. Ways and Means has been a Committee of the Whole House for years past, but it may be that we may find it convenient in the future that it should not continue to be so. I think it is desirable we should have in the Statute the Resolution of the House, and that we should make it quite clear that it should he a Resolution of the House which follows the precedent of Section 18 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1876, which has been already referred to by my hon. Friend, and which does refer to cases where any new duties or customs under the management, collection, or control of the Commissioners of Customs are, or may be, imposed by Act of Parliament, or by any Resolution of the House of Commons. So where you have already a Statute dealing with that matter, it refers to a Resolution of the House of Commons. I think it is of very great importance that we should deal with the matter in a proper way, and that when giving statutory effect to a Resolution it ought to be a Resolution of the House of Commons itself.
  It is clear, so far as a Resolution of Committee of Ways and Means is concerned, the House may either reject it or amend it or recommit it. You can assume the case of the House of Commons recommitting a Resolution, and I think in regard to the Newspaper Duties the House did recommit. I think we ought to make it clear that what is meant is a Resolution of the House of Commons. In regard to this Amendment, I have no doubt the same difficulty will be raised as was raised to the last Amendment, namely, that delay might occur between the passing of the Resolution and its being agreed to by the House, and that that might permit considerable forestalment of duties. That is something I should not wish to happen, but in these cases it could have been met by taking the Report on the same day. There is no Standing Order of the House which prevents it. There is a statement in Sir Erskine May's work on this question on page 560–61, which provides—
  "In deference to the usage expressed in Standing Order No. 71, that consideration of a charge upon the people 'shall not be presently entered upon, but shall be adjourned' to a future day, the Resolutions of the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means, and all

  933
  Resolutions which are sanctioned by the recommendation of the Crown, are not considered on the day on which they are reported from the Committee, but on a future day appointed by the House; and Bills brought in upon such Resolutions are also not passed through more than one stage at the same sitting of the House."
  So that there is no Standing Order whatever to prevent the Report stage being taken on the same day. There are several such cases which I could cite where this was actually done. I think if we are going so far as to partially repeal the Bill of Rights we might go so far as to say that in a case where the circumstances necessitate it we should depart, not from what is a Standing Order, but what is mere usage. We should not put into a Statute anything that is merely a form of procedure of this House in Ways and Means. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that he should at least signify his intention of introducing this in the Bill, and if he will tell me that he will accept it for the purposes of the Bill and make it clear that at least there is to be a Resolution of the House of Commons, I shall withdraw my Amendment.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: After what I said on this question in reply to the hon. Member for East Birmingham, it is not necessary for me to repeat what I then stated. It must be quite clear to the House that we cannot accept this Amendment either in the terms in which it is proposed or in principle, because it would defeat the very object we have in view. I think it is useless to discuss alterations in the Standing Orders, and may I point out that somebody has already called attention to the very Standing Order dealing with this point, which shows that the hon. and learned Member is wrong. I refer to Standing Order No. 242.
  Mr. CASSEL: That is not a Standing Order.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I am dealing with what is the practice of the House, and the rule I refer to is found in the Manual of Procedure. What we want to do is to get the Committee of Ways and Means to pass a Resolution carrying out the practice which has hitherto existed. I hope the hon. and learned Member will not consider me discourteous for not answering his argument more in detail, because from what I have already said it is quite obvious that we cannot accept this Amendment.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I cannot quite agree that it would be desirable to alter the Standing Orders in order to allow the Report stage to be taken on the same day. The object of our financial
  934
  procedure has been to prevent, I will not say a snap Division, but a decision of the Crown taxing the subject without due consideration by the House of Commons. What is the object of that long established custom of this House, expressed in the quotation which my hon. and learned Friend read from Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice"? It is that when the Crown comes down through its Ministers to propose a charge upon the subject, the object of all our procedure is that that charge should be duly considered. The object of the Amendment is to provide a locus penetentiœ on the part of this House. I have a strong objection to a mere Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means having the authority of an Act of Parliament. It certainly seems to me that it is derogatory to the House itself for a mere Committee to arrogate to itself the right to practically pass an Act of Parliament of so important a character as one carrying into law the whole financial proposals of the Government. An enormous mass of legislation could be comprised under the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution, and a whole series of alterations in the position of the subject by means of taxation could be carried through by a simple Resolution in Ways and Means without the power of the House to consider them on Report or without a Bill being founded on the Resolution. That is a monstrous suggestion, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office would never have thought of proposing to this House. In the days of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel there never was such a suggestion made as that of giving a Committee of Ways and Means power to enact an Act of Parliament. The House will remember that when there was a serious conflict of opinion between Mr. Gladstone's Government and Lord Salisbury there was a suggestion of making a compact between the two Front Benches somewhat similar to that which was almost made this afternoon when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire was inclined to agree with the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard it said that the two Front Benches are generally wrong, and that when they agree they are always wrong. Mr. Gladstone wrote a Memorandum in 1885 in which it was stated that—
  "The conditions required by Lord Salisbury placed in abeyance the liberties of Parliament by leaving it solely and absolutely to the power of the Ministers to determine what Supply the House shall be permitted to give judgment upon."

  935
  Mr. Gladstone never dreamed that the concurrence of the two Front Benches would ever limit the right to deal with Supply Mr. Gladstone further said that he would deeply resent any act by which we should agree beforehand to limit the discretion of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now asking us to do that. He is asking the House of Commons and the other House to give up their right of taxation, and to limit its discretion by saying that whatever taxation the Committee of Ways and Means decide upon the House of Commons is to have no further control over it. We are not here merely to legislate, but to control the Executive by holding the purse strings, and holding them in matters of finance on the Resolution and the Report stages of various financial measures. We have four or five methods given to us by the forethought of our ancestors for controlling the Executive forces of this country, and the right hon. Gentleman is sweeping them away and leaving us only one way in which we can control the Executive. I strongly support the proposal which has been put forward by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: The practice in these matters has hitherto been to propose a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means on one day and submit it for Report stage on the next day. It might, if the Resolution were proposed on a Friday, of course involve two days before it was reported, but, at any rate, there would be a very small space of time indeed, and the amount of clearances and evasion of taxation would be confined to those one or two days. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he should not get over the difficulty by adopting the suggestion I made earlier and inserting in the Act, after the Resolution has been agreed to, a provision that the tax shall be made retrospective as from the day the Resolution is passed in Committee of Ways and Means? I believe that it is perfectly practicable. I have taken some expert advice on the point, and I am assured that it is practicable. That would be a far better way than giving the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means the binding force of an Act, because a Resolution very often is not known to any Members of the House until it is read from the Chair. It is true that on one or two occasions, as a matter of grace, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published the Resolutions before they have been moved, but that is
  936
  rather the exception than the rule. I remember when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach introduced his great Budget of 1891, the first Budget to which I listened, the Resolution which followed related to plums and sugar. It was that plums and sugar should no longer be free. That was not known to the House until that night. The House as a rule does not hear the Resolution until it is read from the Chair, and I do say that it should see it in black and white. I cannot see that it will make any difference if you have this retrospective principle inserted in the Act.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Some of us would agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we do not want a day or any time to elapse between the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means and the Report to the House. After all, during the day that might elapse there might be a very large amount of forestalments and clearances. Let us get the situation clear. It is not really quite clear from what the Attorney-General said. Both sides more or less agree that the point as to the exceptional character of the procedure is to be emphasised. I understand that the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are only willing to go so far as to say that they will introduce words into the Taxing Resolution saying it is of a special character. The Attorney-General distinctly said he would not bind himself to any special Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means implicating that. We want a special Resolution, and a special Resolution of the House. We say, going through Erskine May as I have been at some pains to do, and also through the Standing Order, that there is no Standing Order at all that really stands in the way of a Report to the House from Ways and Means being taken the same night. Standing Order 71 does not refer to the point. It refers to the setting up of a Committee by the House. It is referred to in paragraph 242 of the Manual of Procedure as being the usage to report the Resolution on a future day, but as far as one can see it is no more than usage, and, if the Attorney-General says that to alter the usage is a revolution, then I put it as an ordinary sum in proportion, what is the Resolution brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is the real difference between us. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider it carefully, safeguard our rights, and bring it up and discuss it in Committee on the Bill, then I will ask my hon. Friend if

  937
  again he will not press his Amendment now to a Division, but will rest content with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take it into consideration, and that we shall be able to argue it in Committee on the Bill.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: I entirely agree with the spirit of the Amendment, and I think the suggestion made that the Report stage should be taken on the same night as the Committee of Ways and Means a little dangerous. I am not sure that I agree about that. I quite understand the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those taxes should be collected in the easiest possible way, and with the least disturbance to the Inland Revenue officials and others, but he knows perfectly well that the limits of time and of human capacity regulate the amount of dutiable goods that can be taken out of bond, and that if my hon. Friend's suggestion to make the Resolution retrospective as from the day on which it is moved and carried in Committee of Ways and Means were adopted it would be a perfectly simple matter to collect the duty the following day if you take the Report stage the day after the Committee of Ways and Means. There will be no difficulty whatever. We heard a great deal about the difficulties which would result if the Budget of 1909 was thrown out by the House of Lords, but practically nothing happened. The Inland Revenue lost very little. They have ways and means in the Inland Revenue of taking good care of themselves. They have powers of administration under the Act which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has entirely ignored in dealing with this matter, and which give them the chance and possibility, which they exercise of seeing that these dutiable articles are not withdrawn from bond except on conditions which are ludicrously exigent. There is no excuse whatever, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows it perfectly well, for refusing the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this should be made retrospective. We should thus get over the whole difficulty, and have a constitutional practice instead of a very unconstitutional practice, and the revenue would not suffer.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We have all been reading Erskine May. Erskine May was the Bible of many of us yesterday. If I read him rightly and the proceedings of the House of Commons rightly, the whole spirit underlying the Standing
  938
  Orders was to obtain some notice both for the House of Commons and for the country that some form of taxation was going to be imposed of perhaps some novel character or of a character which was unsuited to the present exigencies of the nation. Notwithstanding that, some of my hon. Friends seem to be perfectly willing that the Report stage of Committee of Ways and Means shall be taken on the same day. I shall continue to argue that our ancestors were right in thinking that it ought to be the rule of the House that no two stages of a Finance Bill should be taken upon the same day. It was a great protection to the House and to the taxpayers, and I trust we shall adhere to one of those old safeguards which were so well invented, and which I think are more necessary now than in those days. It is all the more important if the Bill contains the proviso that it shall apply to new taxation as well as to the taxation which operated during the past year. I do not understand at present that this Bill is not going to apply to new taxation. At all events it is going to apply to taxation with some variation, and, if there is taxation with some variation, it may be a great deal of variation and very unjust variation. Therefore it is best to have an opportunity, which this would give, of considering the matter and of organising its forces for opposition, if necessary, by having the Report stage on a separate day to the Committee stage. I should like to know what answer there is to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that this Resolution might be made retrospective. For my part, I believe it is quite practicable to make it retrospective. In that case there would be very little loss to the Exchequer, while there would be, on the other hand, a great loss of the liberties of the House of Commons and of the people.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I agree entirely with every word that has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher). Ever since I have been a Member of this House I have understood that on Money Resolutions two stages cannot be taken on one day. That was almost the first incentive I had to make a study of the Standing Orders. It seems important, as strongly safeguarding the control of the House of Commons, a control which, I may venture to observe, was the guiding spirit two or three years ago in the successful attempt of hon. Gentlemen opposite to deprive the other House

  939
  of the power of interference in financial matters. Are we going to abandon that right which our predecessors have had for centuries? I was shocked to hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil). I listened with very great attention to one of the most able speeches I have ever heard on this question. But heresies seem to be hereditary in the Cecil family. His view was that we might do away with the Report stage on Financial Resolutions and on all subjects relating to finance. To my mind, such a suggestion is absolutely beyond the pale of everything. The very first thing we desire to preserve is the Report stage. The Financial Resolution, in the ordinary course, is read from a little paper which is kept in the Clerk's desk. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not consider it in any way offensive, but will give me credit for saying what I believe, when I say that he was the first Minister in my time to make an alteration on that point, and to put in print what used to be kept in the Clerk's desk.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think with one exception.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want to detract from the merits of the right hon. Gentleman for having done that. It may be he had some regard for consistency, because when he sat below the Gangway on this side of the House, he frequently made attacks on the Government, in order to get that done, and he himself nearly always carried it out. But it does not follow that every Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do the same thing. There is no rule of the House upon it, and it is quite possible that in the future, if this Resolution is passed, the result would be that a Committee of the House of Commons will do what will have the effect of an Act of Parliament, and all that will be known about the matter, will be by those who have been sufficiently energetic, or have summoned up the courage to approach the clerk's table, ask permission to look into his desk, and copy down the contents of a piece of paper. Even then it requires studying. My brain is not quick enough to understand what is in it, and I venture to say that certainly 25 per cent. of the Members of the House have brains as slow as mine, therefore, very few will be any the wiser. I attach very great importance to the Report stage, as it gives
  940
  Members an opportunity of knowing what was actually discussed in Committee. It enables them to get more or less acquainted with what has been going on. They see the Resolution in print. They can collect their wits; and they can find out the weak points. The country moreover, through the Press, has an opportunity of learning what is going on, and people are enabled to write to their Members of Parliament, and point what may be the advantages or disadvantages of the proposals under consideration.
  The only argument I can conceive for abolishing this is that there might be a loss of revenue. There is no one in this House who, more than myself, would regard with sorrow a loss of revenue, but I should regard with still greater sorrow the loss of the control of the House over the expenditure of the nation's finances, especially in view of the fact that practically the only control in this matter rests with this House now. We certainly ought to submit to a slight loss of revenue, and it would be a slight loss, rather than lose the control which it is now proposed we should surrender. There is no project which can be brought forward which cannot be opposed on the ground that there is a flaw in it. Everything put forward in any Assembly in the world has some weak point, and it is easy enough to fix upon that. You have to consider whether there are not many other points much stronger than that particular weak point. I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) has proved that there are many stronger points to be considered than the mere fact of the small pecuniary loss due to the knowledge for one day, which would be given to people who have goods in bond. It can only arise in the case of those people. I am really prejudiced in favour of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope). He did me the honour of showing it to me three or four hours ago. It seemed to be extremely good, and I suggested that he should make it. Like all his proposals, it seems to be without flaw. Hon. Members opposite seem to doubt it. I was consoling myself this evening with the hope that hon. Members opposite were not dealing with this matter in a party spirit. The speech of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) showed that he desired to return to the old traditions of the House on an important subject, and to approach it in the spirit of doing the best

  941
  for the country. Who is going to lose by my hon. Friend's proposal? He proposes that when the Bill is introduced it should be made retrospective. The effect of that will be that if the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division had, we will say, a large consignment of rum, and was desirous of evading the duty which a teetotal Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to increase, he would take care to slip it out very quickly.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I should leave it in bond.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then I will say the hon. Member next him. If the suggestion of my hen. Friend is accepted, when the hon. Member took out the goods, and if the Bill were carried, he would have to pay the difference. The only possible danger I can foresee is that a man of straw might take out the rum, or sugar, or tea.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: A man of straw does not own it. The owner would be liable.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I prefer to knock down my own argument. I do not think there is anything in it. I was supposing that either the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer might advance that argument. A man of straw does not own these goods, and they could only be taken out on the application of the owner. What would happen if the owner of goods in bond was not in a good financial position, and borrowed money on them?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Then the goods are put in the name of the person who lends the money?
  10.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They can recover from him. With the aid of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), I have demolished any argument which can be brought forward against the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Sheffield, and incidentally any argument which can be brought against the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras. (Mr. Cassel). In these circumstances I sincerely trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: There is one point impressed upon me by the speeches just delivered which I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain, namely, the effect which the adop-
  942
  tion of this Resolution and the passing of a Bill founded upon it would have on the Report stage of Resolutions passed in Committee of Ways and Means. I understand that at the present moment, when we pass a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, it takes effect the next morning, and the tax is then levied by the Customs officials, but if the Resolution is rejected on Report stage, the tax drops and the money taken by the Revenue officials is restored to the merchant who has taken commodities out of bond. Suppose we pass the Bill founded upon this Resolution, might the Government, if they lose a Resolution on Report, still continue to levy taxes on the strength of the Act—that is to say, might they totally ignore the fact if they chose?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: May I make that quite clear? You have an Act of Parliament giving legal effect to a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Act of Parliament would give effect to the Resolution when adopted by the House. The only effect of the Resolution is that it will come into immediate operation so far as collection is concerned. If the Resolution is rejected by the House, you cease to collect. An Act of Parliament could not, of course, embody a Resolution which has been rejected by the House.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Then I cannot see on what ground the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) asks us to delay the levying of a tax until the Report of the Resolution has actually been accepted by the House. We are following the existing practice, and I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at this Resolution I think he will find he is not accurate in what he says. A Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means is to have statutory effect. Once having got that statutory effect, the House cannot go back by refusing, on the Report stage, to accept the Resolution of the Committee. That is an important matter. What becomes statutory is the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. I think that is quite wrong, but it is one of the effects of having a Resolution of this kind and putting it into statutory form. It will

  943
  not be competent for the House afterwards to say it has not got statutory effect, because this House does something, for instance does not accept the Resolution on the Report stage. I consider that an extremely important point. I am not now arguing the wider question, though, of course, I am in accord with what has been said on this side, that if you are to give statutory effect to a Resolution at least it ought to be a Resolution of the House. To give statutory effect to a Resolution in Committee appears to me a monstrous infraction of anything that has ever been done as regards legislation in this country. May I point out one other matter which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with? The Manual of Procedure says on this point:—
  "Resolutions passed by the Committee of Ways and Means, when agreed to by the House, require confirmation by Act of Parliament."
  That is how matters stand at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes away the necessity of confirmation by Act of Parliament, and takes away the necessity, for this purpose, of the Report stage. If he will put in that you are not to have a statutory result unless the Resolution has been accepted on the Report stage—that is the meaning of the Amendment, and, after all, the only suggestion made; and it really is a suggestion of despair so far as argument is concerned, is that for one particular day, between the Report stage and the Resolution in Committee, you may have a certain leakage. I believe that is an absolutely unfounded suggestion of difficulty. It can easily be dealt with in a variety of ways, as has been suggested. The Resolution is based on a wrong principle, and I hope the matter will be pressed to a Division, because, in my view, it is most important, and I agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that on these financial matters you should have every chance of control and every chance of informing the public, and really the public get no information at all until after the Committee stage has been passed at the time when the Report stage is taken, which, in my view, ought not to be taken on the same day, but on some subsequent occasion.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: After all, the Resolution is not an Act of Parliament. This is purely an enabling Resolution. It is substantially a permission to the Government to bring in a Bill. I agree if this

  944
  were an Act of Parliament a good many criticisms could be passed upon it, but as it is purely an enabling Resolution to give us permission to introduce a Bill this is what really matters. The enabling Resolution is drafted in the widest possible terms, in order to enable every kind of question which is germane to be debated. Take the two points which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. One is raised in the form of a later Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cassel). That is a matter which ought to be put in the form of a proviso in the Act of Parliament, much more elaborately drawn than the two or three lines which the hon. and learned Gentleman has put down. The same thing applies to all these matters, which, of course, will have to be safeguarded very carefully in the Act of Parliament. If we had omitted them from the Bill itself I agree we should have been liable to criticism, but you cannot, in a Resolution of this kind, put in every exception and modification.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the illustration given by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) of what he would do himself; that he would bring forward a Resolution, and later on say, "Yes, that is quite true, but a long time has elapsed, and it is necessary, in order that the Government may get their Supply, that this should be passed." That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has done now. He has said this Resolution does not much matter. Pass on, and then we will have a Bill. That is what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) did with me when he was President of the Board of Trade upon a question relating to the Labour Exchanges, and I withdrew my Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Baronet has been nut of the House a little while. I must remind him that we are not now on the general question but on an Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was answering the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who suggested that we should abandon this Amendment and pass the Resolution, because the Bill would deal with details, and it really was not supposed that it would be possible that we could put details in the Resolution but we should have them in the Bill. Now we have got the Resolution. We are masters of the position for the moment, and I want to make quite certain that the Resolution is

  945
  right before we go any further, and I do not want to be put off with what we may do later on, because when we come to later on we shall be told we passed it in the Resolution and cannot go back. The hon. Member (Mr. Murray Macdonald) I thought was going to make an excellent speech, but he fell away towards the end, and I think he was a little mistaken in what he thought the right hon. Gentleman said. Of course, up to the present, it is quite true it has been the practice that a Resolution has the force of a Statute. But it is only because people are willing to agree to that, and it is only since 1853 that that has taken place. It is a very different thing to say that by common consent a Resolution may have the force of a Statute from saying we are going to make it have the force of a Statute regardless of whether people consent to it or not, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing at present. I am sure such a true supporter of liberty as the hon. Member, after I have explained the matter to him, will vote with me upon I his question. We must not be misled in this. The Treasury, rightly or wrongly, has taken advantage of the good nature of the House of Commons to say to the taxpayer "a Resolution has been passed and yon have to pay your taxes."
  The CHAIRMAN: We have discussed his for the whole afternoon on the general question. I must invite hon. Members to keep strictly to the point of the Amendment.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is, that it shall not become law until the Report stage has confirmed the Committee. Therefore my arguments, though they may have been repeated before, have not impressed themselves upon hon. Members opposite, and as this is really a very important question it is well that they should be repeated before hon. Members stultify themselves in the Division Lobby by voting against what they would like to do if they only understood the question. Unless hon. Members vote for the Amendment they will be taking a very retrograde step and will be doing infinite harm, and will destroy the control of the House of Commons over finance, which I am sure they do not want to do. Do not let my hon. Friend be led away by the Celtic—what shall I say?—eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is like a conjuror. He can make anything appear just what he likes. This is a serious matter, and I
  946
  think the hard Scottish sense to be found in the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs should, when we go to a Division, make him vote in the right Lobby.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like, Mr. Chairman, to have your ruling upon a point in relation to this Resolution. I understand that the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs stated that in any case the Standing Orders of the House will not be altered, and that a Resolution of Committee, of Ways and Means will have to be reported to the House and passed. I want to ask if you could advise us—assuming that a Resolution is passed in Committee of Ways and Means imposing a new tax, and that it is to have statutory effect for a limited period, say four or six months, which is the proposal of the Government—whether if the House on the Report stage declines to pass the Resolution, the Resolution having been passed in Committee of Ways and Means, it will have statutory effect for four or six months? How is it possible for the Resolution to have statutory effect if this House should throw it out on the Report stage? If the House next day or next week declines to pass the Resolution on the Report stage, what would be the position?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is not a point of Order arising on the present Amendment. It is a legal point which might possibly arise on the Bill. I think I have already pointed out that it would not be possible to insert in the Resolution all the safeguards that may be necessary in the Bill. That is a point which is not within my jurisdiction at present. It is quite a proper point to raise when we come to discuss the Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. J. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this is not the Bill. When we come to deal with the Bill, will he put in a proviso that the Report stage of a Resolution will be taken on the next Parliamentary day after the Resolution has been passed in Committee?
  The CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise on the Amendment in front of us. It should be raised in Committee when the Bill is before us.
  Mr. J. HOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to put in the Resolution the words of the Amendment now, it would be unnecessary to put in any further safeguard to obviate the danger I am pointing

  947
  out. The danger is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having got a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, may go on for the greater part, say five-sixths of the limited period during which it is to have effect before getting his Bill. In the meantime the taxpayer would be paying a tax on the authority of a Resolution which the House had rejected on the Report stage. He would get over that danger if he would accept the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Mr. POLLOCK: I follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying that these Resolutions are drawn as wide as possible in order ot cover all possible liberty required by the House when a Bill founded upon them is introduced. But the Resolution as drawn is a Resolution passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of this House, and I would ask are not some words necessary to leave it open to the House, when the Bill is before it, either to receive or reject an Amendment as to which it should be possible that the Resolution ultimately adopted should not be merely the one limited to a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, but might be a Resolution of the House itself? Here we have limiting words, limiting the Resolution with which we are to deal in the Bill when introduced to a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means. Following up the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it not right to have some words by way of addition in order to safeguard the right of the House to select which it may be, a Resolution of the House or a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means, and not to pass this Resolution in its present form limited as it is only to a Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The brief answer is that this Resolution is an enabling Resolution, and is of course in the widest possible terms. Of course, it is open to us to deal with it when we come to the Bill before the House, or before the Committee after we pass the Second Reading, and to raise any question with regard to it. What we have to take care of in passing the Resolution is that we get it in the widest form possible, and that is what we have done.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: If this Resolution passes now, would not it rule out the Resolution of my hon. Friend?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: No. The widest power which you can give is the power by Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means.
  Sir A. CRIPPSrose—
  The CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps that this is a matter for the Chair which I can settle. If it will satisfy the hon. Member, I may say that it would not require the insertion of these words.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing the Resolution is passed without the insertion of the words proposed by my hon. Friend, what is to prevent the Attorney-General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when a similar Amendment is moved in the Committee stage of the Bill, from saying, "This question was discussed on the Resolution. I really cannot argue it any more, and I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me to support the Government on a matter already discussed." He might go further, and accuse my hon. and learned Friend of obstruction. That is the sort of thing which occurs. We have to remember that we possess a certain power which we had better not lose, because something may happen later on. My hon. Friend beside me has put a most important point as to what the real effect of this is. It is to enable the Government, unless we alter it in the Bill, by a single Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means to pass what is equivalent to an Act of Parliament.
  The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Baronet that this is a point which has already been put by himself and by other hon. Members in the course of the Debate. I must call his attention to the fact that it is repetition.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will not repeat it any more.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Attorney-General answer my question? My point is that unless you accept this Amendment it might happen that a Resolution passed in Committee of Ways and Means would not be reported until after the greater part of the limited period had expired, and might then be reported to the House. I suggest that you might insert words providing for the Report being taken immediately.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: I will consider that.
  Sir J. D. REES: In these three Resolutions contemplating the passing of an Act

  949
  there is not a word about the provisional collection of the tax, and it only provides for the actual imposition of the tax.
  The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment now before the Committee.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 232.

  Division No. 27.]

  AYES.

  [10.29 p.m.

  Baird, J. L.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldman, C. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barnston, H.

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, Alfred

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

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Hohler, G. F.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bull, Sir William James

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pl, Walton)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cave, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clyde, James Avon

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Courthope, George Lloyd

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Cripps, Sir C. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  Yale, Colonel C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, Sir George

  Falle, B. G.

  Weld, Herbert

  Fell, Arthur

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Cassel and Mr. G. Locker-Lampson.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Field, William

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clough, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Clynes, J. R.

  Furness, Stephen

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gill, A. H.

  Armitage, R.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Glanville, H. J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Crooks, William

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

  Barnes, George N.

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

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

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Hackett, J.

  Boland, John Pius

  Delany, William

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Hancock, John George

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Brace, William

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Brady, P. J.

  Doris, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Hayward, Evan

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hazleton, Richard

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

  Falconer, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Hinds, John

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  Hodge, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hogge, James Myles

  Muldoon, John

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Munro, Robert

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

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Neilson, Francis

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Hudson, Walter

  Norman, Sir Henry

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

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Norton, Captain Cecil William

  Sheehy, David

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shortt, Edward

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

  O'Grady, James

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jowett, Frederick William

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, James Henry

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Verney, Sir Harry

  King, J.

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Webb, H.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pringle, William M. R.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Radford, G. H.

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, Michael

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Manfield, Harry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wing, Thomas

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robinson, Sidney

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Mooney, John J.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Mr. RUSSELL REAhad given notice of an Amendment, to leave out the words "for the imposition of any new tax, or."
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Shields, does not propose to move his Amendment.
  Mr. RUSSELL REA: I am willing to refrain from moving my Amendment on the understanding that other Amendments on the Paper will also be withdrawn. I understand that these questions can be raised on the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am prepared to move the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman does not do so.
  The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras had the same reservation to make with regard to his Amendment.
  Mr. CASSEL: What I said was that so far as the character of the taxes was concerned, if no other Amendments were
  952
  moved, I was willing to refrain from moving mine. I am quite willing to adhere to that. But I said that I could not control the action of others.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think that that has anything to do with me. I am ready to move the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman does not go on with it. I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the words, "for the imposition of any new tax, or."
  I think it is perfectly monstrous that any new taxation contemplated by this Resolution should be dealt with in this way. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman put this Amendment on the Paper to spike the guns of any Tariff Reform Government that might be in power. We have had experience in the past of new taxes proposed by Governments being dropped. Surely it is essential now when we have a policy of yearly increasing expenditure, due to various Acts of Parliament imposed upon the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

  953

  and when the right hon. Gentleman may have to invent new taxes—that we should see what we are doing? He has exhausted whisky and many other articles of the kind, and if he requires more money he will find it very difficult to make ends meet without putting an Import Duty on manufactured articles; and I do not want that to be done without me having an opportunity of saying something about it. Under these circumstances I entirely object to the immense power that this Resolution gives to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In stating certain objections earlier, I indicated the view of the Government upon this particular Amendment. I do not think it would be fair to accept this Amendment on this Resolution for reasons indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. He pleaded for at least the opportunity for further discussion upon the Second Reading or the Committee stage. He was strongly of opinion that when the powers, whatever they are, were finally accepted that they should be extended to new duties and new taxes. For that reason, and also for other reasons, I cannot at this stage see my way to accept the Amendment. I adhere to the views I stated earlier in the evening, and I stand by what I said then. I think there is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said that at least there ought to be a further opportunity for the House to consider this question later on.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman did say earlier in the evening. I understood him to say he did not think on the whole—it was not a very strong expression—he would be able to resist the Amendment that would exclude new taxation from the operations of this remarkable Resolution. I do not think he said anything very much stronger. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that this was merely an enabling Resolution, that you must not regard it as a Bill at all, but as a Resolution enabling us to frame a Bill upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman does contemplate framing a Bill upon this Resolution which will include new taxation, why not accept the Amendment? What do you want enabling powers for if in no circumstances you are going to use them? I think few things more dangerous were ever done by the House of Commons than to give this
  954
  or any other Government the power to put into a Bill by a single Resolution of this House, moved in Committee of Ways and Means, of which no notice is given, or only a notice put upon the Paper at twelve o'clock at night, and by a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means taken possibly at two or three o'clock in morning under the gag or the guillotine, to declare that any new taxation of any sort or kind may have statutory obligation. I do not know that anything more remarkable than that was ever done by the House of Commons. I do not think the House is at all alive to what it is asked to do by the Government. It would be perfectly possible under this for some Government to come down, and, after giving no notice to the House or the country, to put any form of taxation into a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, by which, for instance, the land might be nationalised or the mines might be nationalised, or the railways might be nationalised, or anything else, Hon. Members opposite cheer that. Well, at least I will give them credit for saying that that would be a very great departure. We are not here now to argue the merits of these questions, but I believe they would agree that before the House is going to make a great change of this kind full notice should be given to the country and the House. These matters ought to be fully debated, and it ought not to be possible, under transform of procedure by a Resolution of Ways and Means taken in the early hours of the morning, to pass such a Resolution which the Opposition had never seen until it appeared in that morning Order Papers. That would be a travesty and destroy all freedom of discussion and debate.
  I know the right hon. Gentleman did obtain—I am sorry he did—some support from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire for including new taxes. I know why. The right hon. Gentleman thinks there may come a day in this country when we may be on the verge of war, or possibly at war, and that it may be necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain a very speedy decision in this House on some matter which would enable him to raise war taxation. For my part, I believe if that day ever comes the House will respond to the call of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, and that this difficulty will not occur, and that he will be able to obtain such a mea-

  955
  sure of taxation as will enable him to obtain sufficient supplies for carrying on that war. I do not think that is a good argument or a sound argument. At all events, it is not a sound argument for placing these enormous powers in the hands of this or any other Government, and I trust the House will seriously pause before it gives this or any other Government the power asked for by this Resolution. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated his opinion not too strongly that this Resolution should not apply to new taxes. If that is his opinion, I ask him to accept this Amendment, and not to take a Resolution in such a form as will enable him to include in it the application of that Resolution to all new taxes.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish hon. Members opposite would realise what can be done under the provisions of this Bill. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire that we should not think of proposing a Tariff Reform Budget under the provisions of this Resolution, or under a Bill founded thereon. I want hon. Members opposite to realise that they are teaching us a great deal. They have taught us a great deal in the way of gagging Resolutions, and they are now teaching us a great deal in the way of Financial Resolutions. Although we might not bring in a complete Tariff Reform Budget under this Bill it would be possible for a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer or the right hon. Gentleman to include in his Budget Resolution a proposal that there should be a 10 per cent. tax upon all the manufactured articles mentioned in the Schedule to the Resolu-
  tion. You might put in thirty or forty specific manufactured articles, and you could get the whole basis of Tariff Reform under such a Resolution. I want those hon. Members who are going to support this Resolution to consider what position they would be in. Supposing a Resolution were passed in Committee of Ways and Means authorising a 10 per cent. duty on the articles inserted in the Schedule, that Resolution would have statutory force for six months. The whole country would be in a blaze, and petitions might be sent up urging hon. Members to oppose such a Resolution on the Report stage, and the answer would be it is not possible, because under the Bill brought in by a Liberal Government a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means has statutory force, and these taxes having been imposed by a simple Resolution they can be collected for six months, and the House of Commons cannot alter it. That is a proposal which I should have thought no Liberal Member could possibly have supported, because it puts the power into the hands of the Executive by a snap Division of this House in Committee of Ways and Means to pass a measure imposing new taxes.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: I have an Amendment standing in my name dealing with this question; but, in view of the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall not proceed with it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 88.

  Division No. 28.]

  AYES.

  [10.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

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

  Doris, William

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Duffy, William J.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Armitage, Robert

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Clough, William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Clynes, John R.

  Falconer, J.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ffrench, Peter

  Boland, John Pius

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Field, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crooks, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Furness, Stephen

  Brace, William

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Brady, P. J.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Gill, A. H.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Glanville, Harold James

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Delany, William

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Hackett, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon Reginald

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Manfield Harry

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Hancock, John George

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Rowlands, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meehan Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Millar, James Duncan

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Molloy, M.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sheehy, David

  Hazleton, Richard

  Muldoon, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Munro, R.

  Shortt, Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Higham, John Sharp

  Needham, Christopher

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Hinds, John

  Neilson, Francis

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  O'Grady, James

  Verney, Sir Harry

  John, Edward Thomas

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

  Wadsworth, J.

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Wardle, George I

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Shee, James John

  Webb, H.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Keating, Matthew

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kelly, Edward

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  King, J.

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wing, Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lundon, Thomas

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Lynch, A. A

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  NOES.

  Baird, J. L.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Norton-Griffiths, John

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

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baring Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Goldman, C. S.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rawson, Col. R. H.

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bird, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Burn, Col. C. R.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cave, George

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Locker-Lampson. O. (Ramsey)

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Courthope, George Loyd

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

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  G. Younger and Mr. Fell.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Newman, John R. P.

  Mr. LLOYD GEORGErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS (seated and covered): Is it possible to make this Motion after Eleven o'clock, seeing there is no Motion to suspend Standing Orders?
  The CHAIRMAN: The moment of interruption is the proper time to claim to move "That the Question be now put.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: But the Division was called at five minutes to Eleven. Ought not the Closure to have been moved then?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Motion was made in accordance with Standing Orders.
  Sir F. BANBURY (seated and covered): What Question is it you have proposed? Is it the Question of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend which is next on the Paper? The words you used were, "That the Question be now put," and no
  doubt what was in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the Resolution itself should be put. But as you have only put the words, "That the Question be now put," it must apply to my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, which is the Question before the Committee.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Division which is now proceeding is a Division on the main Question, which, as I think the hon. Baronet is aware, is before the Committee until the Amendments have been disposed of. It is to the main Question that Amendments are proposed, and until another Amendment has been proposed it is the main Question before the Committee.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is my point, My hon. and learned Friend got up to propose this Amendment. Consequently the Question before the Committee was his Amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not so.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 73.

  Division No. 29.]

  AYES.

  [11.4 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Hinds, John

  Armitage, R.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Doris, W.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  John, Edward Thomas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Boland, John Pius

  Falconer, James

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Brace, William

  Field, William

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Brady, P. J.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Furness, Stephen

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  George Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Kelly, Edward

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Ryles, Sir William Pollard

  Glanville, H. J.

  King, J.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Chancellor, H. G.

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

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clough, William

  Hackett, J.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Clynes, John R.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Hancock. J. G.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Maclean, Donald

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Crumley, Patrick

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Manfield, Harry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Molloy, M.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Tennant, Harold John

  Mooney, John J.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Morrell, Philip

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muldoon, John

  Reddy, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Munro, R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Needham, Christopher

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Neilson, Francis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Webb, H.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Robinson, Sidney

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Rowlands, James

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  O'Grady, James

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

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

  Wilson, W, T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wing, Thomas

  O'Malley, William

  Scanlan, Thomas

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

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

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  O'Shee, James John

  Sheehy, David

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Philipps, Col. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  NOES.

  Baird, J. L.

  Fell, Arthur

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, H.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Goldman, C. S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Been, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Royds, Edmund

  Bird, A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cave, George

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

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

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Younger, Sir George

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Mount, William Arthur

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  S. Roberts and Mr. Gretton.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

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

  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: On a point of Order—
  The CHAIRMAN: No point of Order can arise now. The House has decided that the Question shall be now put. I will hear the hon. Member after I have carried out the decision of the House and put the Question.
  Main Question put
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask your decision on a point of Order.
  The CHAIRMAN: Before the hon. Member raises a point of Order he must be covered.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD (seated and covered): My point of Order is this: That in the Question you have just put you have put three distinct Resolutions, and it is only in order to put one. I am aware that at the beginning of our proceedings to-day you did read out these as (A), (B), and (C), but I am submitting to you that no one can read this Resolution without seeing that they are three separate and distinct matters which ought to be passed separately.
  The CHAIRMAN: The question ought to have been raised, if at all, when I first put the Question.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 79.

  Division No. 30.]

  AYES.

  [11.14 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hackett, John

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  O'Grady, James

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Hancock, J. G.

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

  Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Malley, William

  Armitage, R.

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Arnold, Sydney

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Balfour, Sir Robert

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. (Rotherham)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Boland, John Pius

  Hinds, John

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hodge, John

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brace, William

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Brady, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Reddy, M.

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Hudson, Walter

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hughes, S. L.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  John, Edward Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Roch, Walter F.

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Joyce, Michael

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Keating, Matthew

  Rowlands, James

  Clough, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kelly, Edward

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  King, Joseph

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Sheehy, David

  Crooks, William

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Shortt, Edward

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lundon, T.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Delany, William

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Maclean, Donald

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Doris, W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Wadsworth, J.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Millar, James Duncan

  Webb, H.

  Falconer, J.

  Molloy, M.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mooney, J. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, George Hay

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ffrench, Peter

  Morrell, Philip

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Field, William

  Muldoon, John

  Wiles, Thomas

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Munro, R.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Neilson, Francis

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gill, A. H.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Wing, Thomas

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

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

  Glanville, H. J.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

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

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  NOES.

  Baird, J. L.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

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

  Barlow, Montague (Salford)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bigland, Alfred

  964

  965

  Bird, A.

  Gretton, John

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Burn, Colonel C. R

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Pretyman, E. G.

  Cassel, Felix

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

  Cave, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Royds, Edmund

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

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

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A.

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Newman, John R. P.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Goldman, C. S.

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Barnston and Mr. J. C. Lyttelton.

  Grant, J. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Resolved that—

  (a) a Resolution passed by the Committee of Ways and Means of this House for the imposition of any new tax, or for the variation of any existing tax, or for the renewal for a further period of any tax which is of a temporary character, whether at the same or a different rate, and whether with or without modifications, shall have statutory effect for a limited period; and

  (b) where a Resolution so provides for the renewal of a temporary tax, all statutory provisions which were in force with reference to that tax as last imposed by Act of Parliament shall, during the said period, have full force and effect with respect to the tax as renewed by the Resolution; and

  (c) payments or deductions on account of a temporary tax made within two months after the date of the expiration of the tax shall, subject to conditions as to repayment or recoupment in certain events, be deemed to be legal payments and deductions.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Colonel Seely.]
  Captain CRAIG: There is one point of interest in reference to aeroplanes and
  966
  aircraft of all kinds, as to which we should have some information from the Secretary of State to-night, or at all events on the Committee stage. The only words to be added to the Bill in Clause 5 are, "And also all aircraft of every description." Everybody will be well aware that if there are, say, a hundred privately owned aircraft at a time, and it was found necessary by the Government to take them over under this Army Act, it would also be necessary to take possession of the aerodromes, sheds, and all appurtenances attaching to them. Otherwise the Government might find themselves handicapped if the machines only fitted particular sheds, or if they took over the machines without the spare parts and appliances necessary to make them get under weigh or receive them on land. If the right hon. Gentleman will take that matter into consideration and either make a statement now or in Committee on the Bill he may be able to satisfy us on the points I have put to him.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a most interesting and important one, and I shall be glad to make a full statement upon it on the Committee stage. This Clause is consequent on other legislation which the House was good enough to pass on a Motion made by me, and it includes aircraft and other vessels, as does the Bill to which I refer. The particular point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is one of real importance, and I certainly shall be glad to make a full statement upon it.
  Mr. KING: There is another small but important point to which I would like to call the attention of the House and especially the attention of the Secretary of State for War. It arises out of Clause 6 of this Bill, and it has to do with the right or the obligation of a soldier to support his wife and children. Under various Acts of Parliament, and especially under the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1895, the age up to which children have to be supported by their father is sixteen years. But under Section 145 of the Army Act there is only power to make deductions from the soldier's pay in respect of the child up to fourteen. I hope it will be possible in Committee to bring the Army Act into accord with general legislation in other respects, and make it quite clear
  968
  that the soldier is liable, just as a civilian, to support children up to the age of sixteen. I shall hand in an Amendment and raise this question, and I hope it will be possible to make the law quite clear.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Tuesday).
  The Orders for the remaining business were read, and postponed.
  It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.